Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Immanuel]

You can pray quietly or silently in your seat without annoying your neighbor, Immie, so there is no need to go to a closet. On the other hand, those who do not wish to participate should not have to go to a closet either. The free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment does not empower you to infringe in a state-supported class on others who do not want to hear it. Your right to exercise stops when it infringes on the greater right to not be around such behavior in a tax-supported classroom.

You said nothing about a classroom in part #2 of your statement.

Your statement came off like if a street preacher wants to speak in a pedestrian mall and someone doesn't want to hear him, then the street preacher must leave.

Students have never had the right to free speech in a classroom nor to interfere with classroom teaching time.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Here we have an entire thread on the "liberal myth" of separation of church and state, which is dominionist propaganda.

And people wonder why I'm continually addressing this issue.


No government sponsored prayer. Get it? Freedom of religion. A public school teacher doesn't get to lead her pupils in a prayer of ANY denomination. Any parent who wants that should home school or send their kid to a religious school.

 

[del]

Well you're wrong and there is an abundant supply of historical documents that proves it.

I am wrong that religous people with their influence in government led to the lynching of an innocent Jew?
You are blind to any facts Lonestar. Your religous beliefs blind you.
You are EXHIBIT A why the Founders wanted seperation of state. They faced blind religous ideologues like you, fought and defeated them.

The Founders, none supported the notion of separation of church and state. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis...


If you would like to challenge that statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any founder ever used the phrase 'separation of church and state.'

If Jefferson were alive today he would be viewed as the religious right.

Jefferson not only went to church as president. He did so inside the House of Representatives. That's right. This man who supposedly believed in an eternal wall of separation between church and state regularly attended church services inside Congress. The church services were presided over by every Protestant denomination. And this was really Jefferson's idea of separation of church and state – meaning no establishment of a state sect."

"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment...

The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

William Hubbs Rehnquist, JD, former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court at the time of the quotation who later became Chief Justice, wrote in his June 4, 1985 dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree

George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words 'so help me God.' The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.' The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim 'a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.'

The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: 'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.' And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection.

These actions of our First President and Congress and the Marshall Court were not idiosyncratic; they reflected the beliefs of the period. Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality."

Antonin Scalia, LLB, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in his June 27, 2005 dissenting opinion in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky

if jefferson were alive today, he wouldn't piss on the religious right (which is neither, btw) if they were fully engulfed in flames.

have a nice day

 

[del]

The right to free speech is a myth. Limits do exist. State-supported and -directed prayer in the public classroom is prohibited. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is prohibited. Terroristic threats are prohibited. Free speech is not permitted in the work place. Yes, there are limitations.

Fixed it for you.

Mike

don't change quotes.

thanks

 

[Immanuel]

Here we have an entire thread on the "liberal myth" of separation of church and state, which is dominionist propaganda.

And people wonder why I'm continually addressing this issue.


No government sponsored prayer. Get it? Freedom of religion. A public school teacher doesn't get to lead her pupils in a prayer of ANY denomination. Any parent who wants that should home school or send their kid to a religious school.

And where have you seen anyone state that a teacher should lead a prayer. Hell, I don't even think that a high school football coach should participate in his team's pregame prayer at least not visually. If he wants to pray on his own so be it, but he should not participate with the team.

You are making bullshit up, Sky.

Immie

 

[del]

Here we have an entire thread on the "liberal myth" of separation of church and state, which is dominionist propaganda.

And people wonder why I'm continually addressing this issue.


No government sponsored prayer. Get it? Freedom of religion. A public school teacher doesn't get to lead her pupils in a prayer of ANY denomination. Any parent who wants that should home school or send their kid to a religious school.

no one wonders

you're a nutbar

s'all good

 

[CryingKoala]

If you would like to challenge that statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any founder ever used the phrase 'separation of church and state.'

Well, it would be true as long as you keep ignoring the constant use of it as both an organizing principle and religious belief of the founders of the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Roger Williams was using the phrase as early as the mid 1600's.
Your argument is factually false on all levels. The Quakers and Anababtist sects were both very politically active during our country's formation and major proponents of secular government. Even to the point of incorporating such beliefs in their religious practices. Separation of Church and State is a fundamental belief of them and was reflected by those drafting the Establishment Clause.
Roger Williams (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Williams was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the "Garden of Christ" and the "Wilderness of the World." This idea might have been one of the foundations of the religion clauses in the U.S. Constitution, (although the language used by the founders is quite different) and First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Years later, in 1802 Thomas Jefferson, writing of the "wall of separation" echoed Roger Williams in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

You rely on intentionally bad history as quoted by David Barton and the Wallbuilders.
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation

But Barton's biggest whopper concerns Thomas Jefferson, who coined the metaphor "wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson used that phrase in an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association. According to Barton, Jefferson went on to add that the "wall" was meant to be "one directional," protecting the church from the state but not the other way around, and, furthermore, that it was intended to keep "Christian principles in government."

This is a complete fabrication, and if Barton would take the time to actually read Jefferson's letter he would see that he is simply wrong. Jefferson's letter says nothing about the wall being "one directional" and certainly does not assert that it was meant to keep "Christian principles" in government. Such sentiments appear nowhere in the body of Jefferson's writings or speeches. In fact, they conflict sharply with our third president's well known advocacy of church-state separation and religious freedom.8


Jefferson not only went to church as president. He did so inside the House of Representatives. That's right. This man who supposedly believed in an eternal wall of separation between church and state regularly attended church services inside Congress. The church services were presided over by every Protestant denomination. And this was really Jefferson's idea of separation of church and state – meaning no establishment of a state sect."

Which would be significant if separation of church and state was meant to be complete divorcement of religion from the political sphere. But you are dead wrong on that as well. What it really means is the government can't play favorites. As long as inclusiveness is the organizing principle and it does not have specific sectarian appear, it will be OK. Back in those days inclusiveness was really all protestant faiths and little else.

This argument shows your lack of understanding of historical context or an intentional blurring of the situation to make a phony point.

The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

Proven useless? Far from it. It has kept government from engaging in sectarian discrimination. Removing such interpretations undermines all religious freedoms. Something you seem to encourage.

William Hubbs Rehnquist, JD, former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court at the time of the quotation who later became Chief Justice, wrote in his June 4, 1985 dissenting opinion...

Dissenting opinion means it has no validity in the application of law.

The whole argument made against separation of church and state is inherently retarded. Even if it allegedly began with SCOTUS, it has been reaffirmed as the guiding interpretation ever since despite numerous political changes of the court. So obviously it is considered by those in charge of interpreting the constitution to be a valid and workable meaning. More importantly it has the force of law behind it. One do

 

[catzmeow]

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Wallace v. Jaffree

Important to note: A dissenting opinion, written by a single judge on the supreme court, after a complainant has been upheld, represents a personal opinion, not the opinion of the court at large. While I respect Justice Rehnquist, he is merely a legal commentator in this instance. And, his comments are significant conflict with both his peers and the prevailing case law. That's why his opinion is a dissent, and not the majority. When taken in context, it should be understood that a majority of Justice Rehnquist's peers on the court disagreed with his view of the situation. Same holds true for Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion that you've also quoted above. That's how dissenting opinions work.

However, thanks for playing. At least this was an opportunity to provide some information on the role of dissenting opinions in court case, and the weight that they should be given. This appears to be your "fallback" quote when you're left at a loss for words, since I've noticed you posting it several times. Perhaps you should rethink this strategy, as it doesn't represent strong evidence for your argument.

 

[catzmeow]

I don't want government in the religion business either, but I don't want someone like Jake telling me I have to go hide in a closet to practice my religion either.

And as I have stated before many times, I am very much in support of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. The last thing in the world that I want is the government dictating to me who's God I must worship even if it is some denomination of my own.

Immie

I actually think that we have a relatively solid logical stance on religion in this country. Nobody interferes with the practice of your beliefs, unless you are imposing the practice of your beliefs on other people. So, praying in the cafeteria or a classroom before school with other Christians: Okay. Praying loudly and publicly during a graduation involving hundreds of other people who may not share your beliefs? Not okay.

But then, after growing up as a Southern Baptist and reading many times Christ's admonitions around prayer, which precede the more famous "Lord's Prayer," I can't help but wonder why Christians are so hellbent on public prayers. That practice is in fact anti-biblical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can pray quietly or silently in your seat without annoying your neighbor, Immie, so there is no need to go to a closet. On the other hand, those who do not wish to participate should not have to go to a closet either. The free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment does not empower you to infringe in a state-supported class on others who do not want to hear it. Your right to exercise stops when it infringes on the greater right to not be around such behavior in a tax-supported classroom.

You said nothing about a classroom in part #2 of your statement.

Your statement came off like if a street preacher wants to speak in a pedestrian mall and someone doesn't want to hear him, then the street preacher must leave.

Students have never had the right to free speech in a classroom nor to interfere with classroom teaching time.

Immie

Where else would it happen if I were talking about my brother's classroom? Please. Your right to witness and or to pray is contingent on not infringing on others rights in a tax-supported environment.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't want government in the religion business either, but I don't want someone like Jake telling me I have to go hide in a closet to practice my religion either.

And as I have stated before many times, I am very much in support of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. The last thing in the world that I want is the government dictating to me who's God I must worship even if it is some denomination of my own.

Immie

I actually think that we have a relatively solid logical stance on religion in this country. Nobody interferes with the practice of your beliefs, unless you are imposing the practice of your beliefs on other people. So, praying in the cafeteria or a classroom before school with other Christians: Okay. Praying loudly and publicly during a graduation involving hundreds of other people who may not share your beliefs? Not okay.

But then, after growing up as a Southern Baptist and reading many times Christ's admonitions around prayer, which precede the more famous "Lord's Prayer," I can't help but wonder why Christians are so hellbent on public prayers. That practice is in fact anti-biblical.

No disagreement with me in regards to this except maybe the graduation prayer. It would depend on the school and the make up of both the student body and the text of the prayer IMHO. In general, I don't have a problem with a short prayer of thanks, but when it turns to an obvious attempt at proselytizing, I have a problem with that.

As for what we have in this country today, I would agree with you; however, that does not mean both sides, atheists and Religious Right, do not attempt to change society to fit their whims. Who's to say what the future holds for us should someone like Pat Robertson win a Presidential election?

FWIW I would vote for John McCain before I voted for Pat Robertson and if you have read any of my statements about my feelings for John McCain you know that is saying a hell of a lot about Pat Robertson.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

You can pray quietly or silently in your seat without annoying your neighbor, Immie, so there is no need to go to a closet. On the other hand, those who do not wish to participate should not have to go to a closet either. The free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment does not empower you to infringe in a state-supported class on others who do not want to hear it. Your right to exercise stops when it infringes on the greater right to not be around such behavior in a tax-supported classroom.

You said nothing about a classroom in part #2 of your statement.

Your statement came off like if a street preacher wants to speak in a pedestrian mall and someone doesn't want to hear him, then the street preacher must leave.

Students have never had the right to free speech in a classroom nor to interfere with classroom teaching time.

Immie

Where else would it happen if I were talking about my brother's classroom? Please. Your right to witness and or to pray is contingent on not infringing on others rights in a tax-supported environment.

Then you should have clarified your statement because the post you just quoted says exactly the way your post came off.

Edit: and I am not criticizing you. I told you earlier that I didn't think the way it came off was what you meant. I simply informed you of the way it read.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

The free exercise of religion is restricted in the Constitution. Yes, a separation of church and state does constitutionally exist, and nothing Koala argues changes that in the slightest.

Roger Williams is one of the first and one of the last words to use in this discussion: separaton of church and state, in his mind, was an absolute necessity for liberation of the spirit.

David Barton is a myth maker, not a myth breaker.

Where Jefferson went to church, or not, is immaterial to the wall of separation between church and state. "The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on" on extremely good history and development of constitutional, federal, and state legal interpretation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You said nothing about a classroom in part #2 of your statement.

Your statement came off like if a street preacher wants to speak in a pedestrian mall and someone doesn't want to hear him, then the street preacher must leave.

Students have never had the right to free speech in a classroom nor to interfere with classroom teaching time.

Immie

Where else would it happen if I were talking about my brother's classroom? Please. Your right to witness and or to pray is contingent on not infringing on others rights in a tax-supported environment.

Then you should have clarified your statement because the post you just quoted says exactly the way your post came off.

Immie

No, Immie, that is your interpretation, no one else's, and even if it were three others', you all would be wrong. I was quite clear on the point.

 

[Immanuel]

Where else would it happen if I were talking about my brother's classroom? Please. Your right to witness and or to pray is contingent on not infringing on others rights in a tax-supported environment.

Then you should have clarified your statement because the post you just quoted says exactly the way your post came off.

Immie

No, Immie, that is your interpretation, no one else's, and even if it were three others', you all would be wrong. I was quite clear on the point.

If you think so, please see the edit made to that post.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not my edit.

 

[Immanuel]

Not my edit.

No, my edit.

Edit: and I am not criticizing you. I told you earlier that I didn't think the way it came off was what you meant. I simply informed you of the way it read.

It was obviously edited while you were preparing your reply.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, good, Immie. By the way, our kids and coaches pray like crazy in our part of the South. Just the way it is, and the admins and teachers at the schools are very very careful to keep matters within bounds during class time.

 

[catzmeow]

No disagreement with me in regards to this except maybe the graduation prayer. It would depend on the school and the make up of both the student body and the text of the prayer IMHO. In general, I don't have a problem with a short prayer of thanks, but when it turns to an obvious attempt at proselytizing, I have a problem with that.

When I graduated, no invocation was offered. My family (literally) gathered in the cafeteria where the graduates were getting ready for the processional, stood around me, put their hands on me, and blessed me.

Which do you think is more meaningful? A watered down benediction? Or a family blessing?

In my opinion, parents have acceded a lot of their responsibilities to the school, on every level. Christian parents have stopped taking responsibility for their children's spiritual lives.

I work on prevention/intervention initiatives. When it comes to kids, what matters with that child is the home that they live in 24/7, the neighborhood, the school they attend daily, and their peers. A single, one-time prevention message has zero effectiveness.

A lot of time, communities with a serious violence problem do very superficial and ineffective things, like holding a large public march, while ignoring the daily circumstances of children's lives. Do you really think that a single march is going to affect a child who spends 24/7 in a disordered home, violent neighborhood, failing school, and with delinquent peers? Of course not.

Same holds true with prayer. Want your children to pray? Then kneel your ass down beside their bed each night and show them how it's done.

A single, one-shot prayer in a graduation ceremony is not going to inculcate your child with anything. It's nothing more than an empty gesture.

If people spent the time and energy they spend pushing public prayer on teaching their children spiritually, this country would be a whole lot better off, but it's easier to do a one-shot than to live your faith every single day before your children's eyes.

As for what we have in this country today, I would agree with you; however, that does not mean both sides, atheists and Religious Right, do not attempt to change society to fit their whims. Who's to say what the future holds for us should someone like Pat Robertson win a Presidential election?

The biggest impact a president would have is with political appointees and judges. My hope for this country is that we regain our sanity....soon.

 

[Immanuel]

OK, good, Immie. By the way, our kids and coaches pray like crazy in our part of the South. Just the way it is, and the admins and teachers at the schools are very very careful to keep matters within bounds during class time.

Thanks and that is the way it should be.

Immie