If the U.S. has no separation of church and state, what is the state religion?

[hazlnut]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

Back in the 70's it seems like this one….

at least it did when you were at the airport.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

No, it doesn't. Fallacy fail. Thread fail.
/end

Explain how it's a fallacy.

You can not because it is not.

You posit an either/or fallacy. Either the U.S. has separation of church and state Or there is an official religion.
There are many other possibilities.

Geez, debating with these people is like wrestling kittens.

It is either/or.

You fail to explain how it's a fallacy.

You can't explain how it is a fallacy because it is not.

You've got nothing.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

The First Amendment is about the freedom OF religion, and not the freedom FROM religion to meet the satisfaction of secularists. The left uses the misinterpretation of Jefferson's quote to validate the need to remove any and ALL "public" display of religion, therby completely missing the boat on it's true meaning. You have to first begin to understand the history of this country from the views of those more closely associated with the Founders of that time, to get a more accurate view of what the word "establishment" refers to and what they were trying to accomplish. Contrary to the misguided efforts of those on the left, government is not to dictate how a person chooses to exercise their own faith. The phrase "ESTABLISHMENT of religion" was rendered a very specific definition back in January 19, 1853, through the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would then be further explained and confirmed through Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary, looking to the true intent that our Founders had desired our government to follow. Our Founders desired an ENCOURAGEMENT of religion, where ANY denomination or faith could freely express their beliefs openly without fear of government stepping in to instruct HOW and IN WHAT FASHION, a denomination may be restricted and forced to conform it's views to satisfy the views and needs of another. Secularists and Atheists are unfortunately doing exactly that, using government to force it's interpretive view of how another may exercise their faith, to the approval and satisfaction of those who don't share a specific belief ... or prefer to have none at all.

 

[WinterBorn]

So people can be Christians as long as they don't actually practice Christianity or express their beliefs? ANd you think that's OK?

How is anyone stopping them from practicing Christianity? Has anyone been barred from a church, arrested for praying in a church or at home?

You're joking, right? The news is filled with stories about challenges to people praying all the time. Sporting events, graduations, sessions of the legislature. Google is your friend.

There are challenges to prayers lead by employees of state institutions or group prayers.

Are you saying your religion requires that you pray in groups? Does God not hear your prayer unless it is part of an event? In fact, I recall a parable in the bible condemning such showy praying.

 

[The Rabbi]

Explain how it's a fallacy.

You can not because it is not.

You posit an either/or fallacy. Either the U.S. has separation of church and state Or there is an official religion.
There are many other possibilities.

Geez, debating with these people is like wrestling kittens.

It is either/or.

You fail to explain how it's a fallacy.

You can't explain how it is a fallacy because it is not.

You've got nothing.

Merely repeating your fallacious argument is not arguing. In fact it is another fallacy.
So you've offered two fallacies: the either/or fallacy and the mere assertion fallacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

How is anyone stopping them from practicing Christianity? Has anyone been barred from a church, arrested for praying in a church or at home?

You're joking, right? The news is filled with stories about challenges to people praying all the time. Sporting events, graduations, sessions of the legislature. Google is your friend.

There are challenges to prayers lead by employees of state institutions or group prayers.

Are you saying your religion requires that you pray in groups? Does God not hear your prayer unless it is part of an event? In fact, I recall a parable in the bible condemning such showy praying.

They are not. They are challenges from some aggrieved party egged on by the ACLU.
WHo are you to tell people what their religion requires?

 

[Ernie S.]

How do you prove a negative? Along with prohibiting the establishment of a religion the 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. The bigoted left got around the "making" part of the Constitution by finding a loophole that did not exist. The modern concept of "separation church/state" is an invention by a FDR appointed Supreme Court justice who was also a former KKK member who hated Papists. The bigoted left drags out Jefferson letters that tend to reinforce the separation concept but Jefferson's letters are not part of Constitutional law.

All law is man-made. All supreme court cases support the conclusion that there is a metaphorical wall btn church and state. Any state action that proselytizes is an establishment clause violation.

I know I certainly don't want big government shoving religion down my throat. Do you?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Seems that reading that any other way would be sort of misguided.

Any State action that impedes the free exercise of religion is a free exercise violation. The First Amendment guarantees us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.

I know I certainly don't want big government telling me I cannot worship as I see fit.

Simply put, the federal government should have no opinion on, no support for, or be no impediment at all, to religion.

 

[WinterBorn]

You're joking, right? The news is filled with stories about challenges to people praying all the time. Sporting events, graduations, sessions of the legislature. Google is your friend.

There are challenges to prayers lead by employees of state institutions or group prayers.

Are you saying your religion requires that you pray in groups? Does God not hear your prayer unless it is part of an event? In fact, I recall a parable in the bible condemning such showy praying.

They are not. They are challenges from some aggrieved party egged on by the ACLU.
WHo are you to tell people what their religion requires?

So anyone can claim any action to be part of their religious practices, and it must be accepted regardless of what their own doctrines and holy texts actually say?

Are you sure you want to open THAT door? Many Wiccans believe their rituals should be performed "skyclad" (meaning naked). If your school led prayer should not be stopped, why should their skyclad rituals be stopped?

 

[The Rabbi]

There are challenges to prayers lead by employees of state institutions or group prayers.

Are you saying your religion requires that you pray in groups? Does God not hear your prayer unless it is part of an event? In fact, I recall a parable in the bible condemning such showy praying.

They are not. They are challenges from some aggrieved party egged on by the ACLU.
WHo are you to tell people what their religion requires?

So anyone can claim any action to be part of their religious practices, and it must be accepted regardless of what their own doctrines and holy texts actually say?

Are you sure you want to open THAT door? Many Wiccans believe their rituals should be performed "skyclad" (meaning naked). If your school led prayer should not be stopped, why should their skyclad rituals be stopped?

Argumentum ad absurdum is also a logical fallacy.
Fail.

 

[Ernie S.]

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

No, it doesn't mean that.

(So much for that thread.)

If there is no separation between a government and a religion, of course it means there would be a government established religion. That's what no separation means, you idiot.

Fail again!

 

[DiamondDave]

Is Christmas a Federal Holiday?

Is MLK day?? Does not mean that we deify MLK as a country

Is Arbor Day a federal holiday? Does that mean we have a state religion of druidism??

 

[Ernie S.]

How is anyone stopping them from practicing Christianity? Has anyone been barred from a church, arrested for praying in a church or at home?

You're joking, right? The news is filled with stories about challenges to people praying all the time. Sporting events, graduations, sessions of the legislature. Google is your friend.

There are challenges to prayers lead by employees of state institutions or group prayers.

Are you saying your religion requires that you pray in groups? Does God not hear your prayer unless it is part of an event? In fact, I recall a parable in the bible condemning such showy praying.

No, it does not, but it (the 2nd Amendment) forbids the Federal Government from forbidding me to pray in groups.

 

[peach174]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

But it does not mean barring God from the Government. That would violate the 1st amendment of freedom to exercise your religion.
Freedom of religion does not mean you as a Government worker have to be silent about your religion.
This is why we have opening prayer at the beginning of each House and Senate session.
Prayer at the beginning of the day is not teaching or promoting anyone to any one type of religion.
If you are an Atheist hearing prayers in the morning is not going to get to believe that there is a God.
It means that you can not have any one religion promoted by the Government.
Having a Nativity scene or a Menorah on the State Capital building is not promoting Christianity or Judaism.
Just looking at religious symbols is not going to convert you to either religion.
This is what they meant. No Government can try to convert anyone to any one type of religion.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Explain how it's a fallacy.

You can not because it is not.

You posit an either/or fallacy. Either the U.S. has separation of church and state Or there is an official religion.
There are many other possibilities.

Geez, debating with these people is like wrestling kittens.

There are no other possibilities if you are unable to present some form of historical proceeding, or through the lifestyle expressed by the early colonists, to back up you claim. For example - To have a removal of prayer in school would mean that someone (like those early colonists) would have welcomed it in the first place. We just didn't start by someone (or our government) coming in trying to establish prayer in school in the early 1900s. How knowledgable is this generation of their nation's own history? It even makes basic common sense, if you simply "know" you must look back to how such practices found their start in this country ... and in the classroom.

 

[Katzndogz]

How do you prove a negative? Along with prohibiting the establishment of a religion the 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. The bigoted left got around the "making" part of the Constitution by finding a loophole that did not exist. The modern concept of "separation church/state" is an invention by a FDR appointed Supreme Court justice who was also a former KKK member who hated Papists. The bigoted left drags out Jefferson letters that tend to reinforce the separation concept but Jefferson's letters are not part of Constitutional law.

There wasn't Jefferson's "letters" there was Jefferson't letter to the Danbury Baptists who wrote inquiring as to whether their Church would be allowed to exist. Jefferson wrote back assuring them that government would not interfere with worship as there was a separation between church and state.

The letter in question.

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

 

[BlindBoo]

Is Christmas a Federal Holiday?

Is MLK day?? Does not mean that we deify MLK as a country

Is Arbor Day a federal holiday? Does that mean we have a state religion of druidism??

Yes. No, MLK has yet to be called the Son of God.

Yes. No. Druids were into planting trees?

Btw, I believe Christmas has been co-opted into the greatest celebration of Capitalism/Materialism in history.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

You posit an either/or fallacy. Either the U.S. has separation of church and state Or there is an official religion.
There are many other possibilities.

Geez, debating with these people is like wrestling kittens.

It is either/or.

You fail to explain how it's a fallacy.

You can't explain how it is a fallacy because it is not.

You've got nothing.

Merely repeating your fallacious argument is not arguing. In fact it is another fallacy.
So you've offered two fallacies: the either/or fallacy and the mere assertion fallacy.

You are the one who is repeating a fallacious argument.

I already made my argument--that if there is no separation of church and state, there must be an established state religion.

Your only response is to call it a fallacy.

I'm asking you to explain why you call it a fallacy, and you CAN NOT.

This is the point where YOU get stuck. Where YOU are proven to be full of shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religion isn't as important to Republican leadership as they claim.

Profit is their God.

Religion is merely a populist tool used to get poor people to vote for the interests of the people who shipped American jobs to China in order to profit from cheaper labor.

Ronald Reagan never stepped foot in a church until he realized that his path to the White House was through the heartland and the South. This is the worst kept secret in history.

The Republican Party represents the takeover of Washington by large corporations and the wealthy. But these special interests need to win elections - so they manipulated poor people with God, Patriotism, Terrorism ("national security" > fear), etc.

The GOP voting base in Texas is social con, on which Rick Perry has built an incredibly effective political machine. Those social cons have given him (and folks like Louie Gohmert) an almost impregnable position.

 

[The Rabbi]

Explain how it's a fallacy.

You can not because it is not.

You posit an either/or fallacy. Either the U.S. has separation of church and state Or there is an official religion.
There are many other possibilities.

Geez, debating with these people is like wrestling kittens.

There are no other possibilities if you are unable to present some form of historical proceeding, or through the lifestyle expressed by the early colonists, to back up you claim. For example - To have a removal of prayer in school would mean that someone (like those early colonists) would have welcomed it in the first place. We just didn't start by someone (or our government) coming in trying to establish prayer in school in the early 1900s. How knowledgable is this generation of their nation's own history? It even makes basic common sense, if you simply "know" you must look back to how such practices found their start in this country ... and in the classroom.

What?

 

[The Rabbi]

It is either/or.

You fail to explain how it's a fallacy.

You can't explain how it is a fallacy because it is not.

You've got nothing.

Merely repeating your fallacious argument is not arguing. In fact it is another fallacy.
So you've offered two fallacies: the either/or fallacy and the mere assertion fallacy.

You are the one who is repeating a fallacious argument.

I already made my argument--that if there is no separation of church and state, there must be an established state religion.

Your only response is to call it a fallacy.

I'm asking you to explain why you call it a fallacy, and you CAN NOT.

This is the point where YOU get stuck. Where YOU are proven to be full of shit.

I've explained it several times as to why it is a fallcy. You posit only two possibilities: We have an official religion. Or We have separation of church and state. What if they are other possibilities?

Doubling down on stupid is not an argument, btw.