Real reason for seperation of church and state

[Votto]

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Well... that and the quote is taken out of context.

It meant that the government is supposed to stay away from the church, not the church stay out of the government.

 

[aris2chat]

I loved Carlin's humor

 

[Votto]

Well... that and the quote is taken out of context.

It meant that the government is supposed to stay away from the church, not the church stay out of the government.

Wrong.

We have a people created by and for the government.

Progs showed us the truth about the mater, the Founders were dyslexic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"It meant that the government is supposed to stay away from the church, not the church stay out of the government."

Wrong.

It means the church stays out of government as well, it may not seek to codify religious dogma in secular law absent a secular purpose:

“Held: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

Stone v. Graham

 

[BreezeWood]

REAL REASON FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE



Pugs ...

EarthLink - Political News

GOP Sen. David Perdue: Pray that Obama's 'days be few'

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican senator told conservatives Friday they should pray for President Barack Obama and suggested a biblical passage that says, "Let his days be few."

... having learned over history what constitutes the qualities of a biblicist.

.

 

[Votto]

"It meant that the government is supposed to stay away from the church, not the church stay out of the government."

Wrong.

It means the church stays out of government as well, it may not seek to codify religious dogma in secular law absent a secular purpose:

“Held: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

Stone v. Graham

But as it is the Pope says that Trump is going to hell for wanting to build a wall and embraces liberals all across the US like Sanders whom he invited over for a Marx love fest.

 

[aris2chat]

"It meant that the government is supposed to stay away from the church, not the church stay out of the government."

Wrong.

It means the church stays out of government as well, it may not seek to codify religious dogma in secular law absent a secular purpose:

“Held: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

Stone v. Graham

But as it is the Pope says that Trump is going to hell for wanting to build a wall and embraces liberals all across the US like Sanders whom he invited over for a Marx love fest.

vatican has a wall

 

[Votto]

"It meant that the government is supposed to stay away from the church, not the church stay out of the government."

Wrong.

It means the church stays out of government as well, it may not seek to codify religious dogma in secular law absent a secular purpose:

“Held: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

Stone v. Graham

But as it is the Pope says that Trump is going to hell for wanting to build a wall and embraces liberals all across the US like Sanders whom he invited over for a Marx love fest.

vatican has a wall

But that is a holy wall, not a wicked wall like the one Trump wants to build.

 

[Wolfstrike]

The REAL reason for, what you call ,separation of church and state is because the king of England was also the head of the church. ...so if the king said everyone has to do the hokey pokey, it was as good as orders from God

 

[aris2chat]

"It meant that the government is supposed to stay away from the church, not the church stay out of the government."

Wrong.

It means the church stays out of government as well, it may not seek to codify religious dogma in secular law absent a secular purpose:

“Held: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

Stone v. Graham

But as it is the Pope says that Trump is going to hell for wanting to build a wall and embraces liberals all across the US like Sanders whom he invited over for a Marx love fest.

vatican has a wall

But that is a holy wall, not a wicked wall like the one Trump wants to build.

A holy wall? built to protect those inside



Not exactly a wall one will climb over.



Not some little fence

[URL='https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=vatican+walls+history&view=detailv2&&id=7FC6BCDC1B5373E27350047B7B2DC85E2EB01AAD&selectedIndex=74&ccid=5qCN7Kf1&simid=607989949336323785&thid=OIP.Me6a08deca7f582f796992e0ef13c6239o0'] [URL='https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=vatican+walls+history&view=detailv2&&id=614340AF4047D39511AE8F670EE7FEC68D9EEB59&selectedIndex=115&ccid=5fqU3PCp&simid=608017686241936930&thid=OIP.Me5fa94dcf0a9c68607cc5edbf667f701o0'][/URL][/URL]

 

[Picaro]

The REAL reason for, what you call ,separation of church and state is because the king of England was also the head of the church. ...so if the king said everyone has to do the hokey pokey, it was as good as orders from God

Best answer here. Carlin's joke is funny, though.

Separation of church and state re the American Constitution restricted the Federal government from any interference in religion; it didn't ban any religious references, and it didn't prevent individual states from having established religions.

Separation of church and state was a Baptist invention, one of their founding principles actually.

Thomas Helwys


Important quotes from Thomas Helwys
"If the Kings people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more: for men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man." — A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity

"If our lord the King by his discerning judgment see that as Queen Mary by her sword of justice had no power over her subjects consciences (for then had she power to make them all Papists, and all that resisted her therein suffered justly as evil doers) neither hath our lord the King by that sword of justice power over his subjects consciences: for all earthly powers are one and the same in their several dominions." — A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity


In view of this, those that gibber on and on about 'removing religious influence from our government and laws' are, well, retarded, actually; they can't remove it at all, no matter how much they want to.

 

[Agit8r]

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Govt could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the Xn religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

 

[Wolfstrike]

and it didn't prevent individual states from having established religions.

.

the states honored the Bill of Rights.

some states mandated a tax to be paid to a church, but they didn't consider that establishing religion because you were free to decide which church you wanted to pay.

Modern history re-writers say that's an example Bill of Rights not being applied to the states, but their view is false

 

[Picaro]

and it didn't prevent individual states from having established religions.

.

the states honored the Bill of Rights.

some states mandated a tax to be paid to a church, but they didn't consider that establishing religion because you were free to decide which church you wanted to pay.

Modern history re-writers say that's an example Bill of Rights not being applied to the states, but their view is false

Obviously it isn't false, as your own examples and post show. Individual states were free to make their own laws respecting the establishment of religion. Nobody said they had to.

 

[Picaro]

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Govt could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the Xn religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
-- James Madison; from letter to Robert Walsh (March 2, 1819)

The original dominant religions of the individual colonies were becoming minorities in their own states; they could no longer be justify favoring one sect over another. The original principle was widely accepted and lobbied for in the First Great Awakening, in the decades before the Revolution, by the evangelical Protestant sects, the three largest being the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, the denominations favored by the Irish Protestant immigrants. they also were responsible for the election of Jefferson as VP and then President.

 

[Wolfstrike]

and it didn't prevent individual states from having established religions.

.

the states honored the Bill of Rights.

some states mandated a tax to be paid to a church, but they didn't consider that establishing religion because you were free to decide which church you wanted to pay.

Modern history re-writers say that's an example Bill of Rights not being applied to the states, but their view is false

Obviously it isn't false, as your own examples and post show. Individual states were free to make their own laws respecting the establishment of religion. Nobody said they had to.

forcing people to pay money to the church is the modern interpretation of "established religion"

but it wasn't at the time of the revolution, because they didn't tell you which church to give money to.

The states felt they were respecting the Bill of Rights.

Now days, is a church is seen or heard, that's considered "established religion"

 

[emilynghiem]

Well... that and the quote is taken out of context.

It meant that the government is supposed to stay away from the church, not the church stay out of the government.

Dear Pumpkin Row
To be fair, it goes both ways.
Look at amendment one,
Where Congress can neither establish nor prohibit free exercise of religion.

Notes
1. The 14th amendment extends this from federal govt to states indirectly by equal protection of the laws for all persons under their jurisdiction
2. The civil rights act and subsequent laws extends this to public institutions that receive federal funding and added language on not discriminating by creeds
3. People still do not agree how to interpret religion or Creed consistently because secular atheist and now LGBT beliefs are not treated the same as established Christian beliefs. So we do have conflict on what is a belief and how the law is being used to establish policies biased by faith based beliefs

We are still arguing over the meaning and application of the First amendment because secular political beliefs are not treated equally as organized religious beliefs. And I argue that is discrimination by Creed not to treat these equally.