Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick argues there is no separation of church and state in U.S. Constitution

He's right. Find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution. It does not exist. Some people take the part about "gov't shall establish no religion" as "separation of church and state" but that's not in the constitution.
So if the clause : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the fee excercise thereof" does not mean that the Chufch and State shall be separate..... WHAT THE **** DOES IT MEAN ? .....in your own words.
This does -not- prevent the inclusion of religious principles and tenets within the functions of the state.
What exactly does that mean? What religion? What does that look like exactly in real life?
 
So if the clause : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the fee excercise thereof" does not mean that the Chufch and State shall be separate..... WHAT THE **** DOES IT MEAN ? .....in your own words.
This is the degree to which the constitution protects religion from the government.
 
The LT Governor of Texas, the most influential position in the state (history there), as part of a Trump Commission, is arguing there is no separation of Church and State.
By all means show us where the Constitution says there is a separation of church and state.

There were state sponsored religions in the original states up through the 1830's and THEY WERE NEVER CHALLENGED.

The states just got smart and wrote them out.
 
Really, that's what it means to you?
That's what the words say.
By "religion" I mean the "right to practice you religion, if any", not the various churches.
So, better said:
This is the degree to which the constitution protects the right of the people to the religion of their choosing from the government.


 
That's what the words say.
By "religion" I mean the "right to practice you religion, if any", not the various churches.
So, better said:
This is the degree to which the constitution protects the right of the people to the religion of their choosing from the government.
It is also protection from the government being infested with religion, which then would foist itt on the populace with laws and policies favoring said religion

It also protects the individuals right to have freedom FROM religion- whether that religion be imposed upon then but the religious entity, or through the government . If you can't understand or accept that, there is no hope for you.
 
The LT Governor of Texas, the most influential position in the state (history there), as part of a Trump Commission, is arguing there is no separation of Church and State. Given the Texas Republican's sudden fear of Sharia law, this appears to be a terrifying position to take. Thoughts USMB?

I've actually made this argument myself over the years and I am not a religious person. The Establishment Clause states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What this had always meant was that they could not establish a state religion. They put this in there to prevent religious persecution that many original settlers had faced in Europe. It wasn't until the 20th century that courts started taking it upon themselves to declare any government religious affiliation at all a taboo, like posting the Ten Commandments at a courthouse or preventing a team prayer at a football game.
 
Back
Top Bottom