The Real intention of Separation of Church and State

[ihopehefails]

The real intent of the first amendment was not to snub religion out of public life such as taking down the wreaths at city hall but was to protect church's from the government. The first clause basically says that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of... and the second part says that no law can be created that inhibits someone's religion.

I believe that the writers meant this to mean that government can't create a state church like the church of England because they knew that whenever the government got involved in anything it usually snuffed out its competitors. They feared that an official church of the state would destroy other people's churches and destroy the freedom for any individual to attend the church that they choose to along with it.

This protects individual's right to believe any religious beliefs that they want by preventing the state from creating an official church or inhibiting them from attending a church. This means that a small town full of Christians can have government funding for Christmas trees and a small town full of Muslims can fund <insert muslim ceremony here> without anyone else's right to believe or attend a different church being threatened simply because it separates church from state.

BTW, The expression's use of church does not refer to a person's religious beliefs associated with that church but the institution and organization itself. Its like saying separation of <the Vatican> from the state or separation of the Church of England from England. Its referring to the organization not the values associated with it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you were going great (imho) right up until you got to:

This means that a small town full of Christians can have government funding for Christmas trees and a small town full of Muslims can fund <insert muslim ceremony here> without anyone else's right to believe or attend a different church being threatened simply because it separates church from state.

I appreciate your right to your own interpretation - But I disagree. And I hope the Constitution NEVER gets interpreted this way by the courts.

 

[rdean]

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

 

[pinqy]

This protects individual's right to believe any religious beliefs that they want by preventing the state from creating an official church or inhibiting them from attending a church. This means that a small town full of Christians can have government funding for Christmas trees and a small town full of Muslims can fund <insert muslim ceremony here> without anyone else's right to believe or attend a different church being threatened simply because it separates church from state.

Let's take a closer look at this. The first ammendment supports an INDIVDUAL's right to freedom of religion. The first ammendment only applies to the states through the 14th ammendment, the relevant part reading: " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Govenment funding for the majority religion gives extra religious expression to those of the majority, and denies it to the minority. This is not equal protection and it's not freedom of religion for the minority religions. Government support or endorsement of one set of religious beliefs necessarily puts those religious beliefs not endorsed on lesser footing, lesser protection, and certainly not the same freedom to practice.

 

[Sunni Man]

That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists.

Also, don't forget the evils of abortion.

 

[rdean]

That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists.

Also, don't forget the evils of abortion.

If conservatives spent as much time, effort, and money on the children of unwanted pregnancy, then we could probably end abortion simply because there is an alternative.

Is that going to happen? Of course not. Conservatives only want to get them born. After that? Screw 'em. They don't care what happens.

 

[AllieBaba]

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

Actually, it was to protect those of minority religious groups from persecution by majority religious groups.

It was to protect the right of anyone to speak their religion freely, and not have it interfere with their right to participate freely in enterprise, politics, prosperity.

As usual, rgaygene, you have it exaclty ass backwards. Which is the way you like it, I'm sure.

 

[rdean]

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

Actually, it was to protect those of minority religious groups from persecution by majority religious groups.

It was to protect the right of anyone to speak their religion freely, and not have it interfere with their right to participate freely in enterprise, politics, prosperity.

As usual, rgaygene, you have it exaclty ass backwards. Which is the way you like it, I'm sure.

At least you have barely enough sense to understand that someone is being protected from the religious. No one ever made laws or wrote protections against atheists.

 

[pinqy]

No one ever made laws or wrote protections against atheists.

You're kidding, right? You've honestly never heard of blasphemy laws? And didn't know that many states in their original constitutions had religious requirements, usually just a basic statement of belief in God, in order to serve in office or serve on a jury? There have been plenty of laws either directly or indirectly against atheists.

 

[rdean]

No one ever made laws or wrote protections against atheists.

You're kidding, right? You've honestly never heard of blasphemy laws? And didn't know that many states in their original constitutions had religious requirements, usually just a basic statement of belief in God, in order to serve in office or serve on a jury? There have been plenty of laws either directly or indirectly against atheists.

And thank God they don't exist anymore.

 

[pinqy]

No one ever made laws or wrote protections against atheists.

You're kidding, right? You've honestly never heard of blasphemy laws? And didn't know that many states in their original constitutions had religious requirements, usually just a basic statement of belief in God, in order to serve in office or serve on a jury? There have been plenty of laws either directly or indirectly against atheists.

And thank God they don't exist anymore.

Ah, you're admitting you were mistaken when you said they never existed? Thanks.

 

[rdean]

You're kidding, right? You've honestly never heard of blasphemy laws? And didn't know that many states in their original constitutions had religious requirements, usually just a basic statement of belief in God, in order to serve in office or serve on a jury? There have been plenty of laws either directly or indirectly against atheists.

And thank God they don't exist anymore.

Ah, you're admitting you were mistaken when you said they never existed? Thanks.

Your welcome.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you pay attention to the Bill of Rights, youd notice that all the rights are designed to be protection from government.

Because the founders were wise men who realized government is a necessary evil.

 

[manu1959]

The real intent of the first amendment was not to snub religion out of public life such as taking down the wreaths at city hall but was to protect church's from the government. The first clause basically says that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of... and the second part says that no law can be created that inhibits someone's religion.

I believe that the writers meant this to mean that government can't create a state church like the church of England because they knew that whenever the government got involved in anything it usually snuffed out its competitors. They feared that an official church of the state would destroy other people's churches and destroy the freedom for any individual to attend the church that they choose to along with it.

This protects individual's right to believe any religious beliefs that they want by preventing the state from creating an official church or inhibiting them from attending a church. This means that a small town full of Christians can have government funding for Christmas trees and a small town full of Muslims can fund <insert muslim ceremony here> without anyone else's right to believe or attend a different church being threatened simply because it separates church from state.

BTW, The expression's use of church does not refer to a person's religious beliefs associated with that church but the institution and organization itself. Its like saying separation of <the Vatican> from the state or separation of the Church of England from England. Its referring to the organization not the values associated with it.

having either rule the other is a problem......having them at odds creates balance....

 

[asaratis]

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

And all this time you have been mistaken. It prohibits The government and enables the people. It keeps the government from morphing into a religious zealot, such as the church from which the founding fathers fled.

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

Actually, it was to protect those of minority religious groups from persecution by majority religious groups.

It was to protect the right of anyone to speak their religion freely, and not have it interfere with their right to participate freely in enterprise, politics, prosperity.

As usual, rgaygene, you have it exaclty ass backwards. Which is the way you like it, I'm sure.

No, again. Read what it actually says. The government shall pass no law...

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

Actually, it was to protect those of minority religious groups from persecution by majority religious groups.

It was to protect the right of anyone to speak their religion freely, and not have it interfere with their right to participate freely in enterprise, politics, prosperity.

As usual, rgaygene, you have it exaclty ass backwards. Which is the way you like it, I'm sure.

At least you have barely enough sense to understand that someone is being protected from the religious. No one ever made laws or wrote protections against atheists.

Why should there be any need to protect against atheists? What is their agenda...to force others to believe as they do, that there is no God? That, in itself is a religion.

No one ever made laws or wrote protections against atheists.

You're kidding, right? You've honestly never heard of blasphemy laws? And didn't know that many states in their original constitutions had religious requirements, usually just a basic statement of belief in God, in order to serve in office or serve on a jury? There have been plenty of laws either directly or indirectly against atheists.

And thank God they don't exist anymore.

BLASPHEMY!!!

Anti-blasphemy laws are unconstitutional

The New Blasphemy Law in Ireland - ABC News

Islamic countries push a global 'blasphemy' law | csmonitor.com

Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan

Expert: U.N. Resolutions Would Create 'Global Blasphemy Law' | Christianpost.com

Blasphemy laws in the 21st century | Psychology Today

CNSNews.com - Blasphemy Laws Seen As Root Cause of Violence Against Christians

Pakistan: Christians launch movement to repeal blasphemy laws - Jihad Watch

Church 'accepts end of blasphemy law' - Telegraph

Muslim bigots impose blasphemy laws on Victoria

 

[ihopehefails]

This protects individual's right to believe any religious beliefs that they want by preventing the state from creating an official church or inhibiting them from attending a church. This means that a small town full of Christians can have government funding for Christmas trees and a small town full of Muslims can fund <insert muslim ceremony here> without anyone else's right to believe or attend a different church being threatened simply because it separates church from state.

Let's take a closer look at this. The first ammendment supports an INDIVDUAL's right to freedom of religion. The first ammendment only applies to the states through the 14th ammendment, the relevant part reading: " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Govenment funding for the majority religion gives extra religious expression to those of the majority, and denies it to the minority. This is not equal protection and it's not freedom of religion for the minority religions. Government support or endorsement of one set of religious beliefs necessarily puts those religious beliefs not endorsed on lesser footing, lesser protection, and certainly not the same freedom to practice.

How does paying for a christmas tree interfere with a muslims ability to prey in their own mosque therefore interfering with their freedom to practice their religion?

This is what equal protection actually means as stated by a justice in Strauder VS. West Virginia:

to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States.

It was designed that whatever "protections" that the law provided to one person as in protection from being murdered, raped, robbed, etc, etc, and etc had to be given to everyone equally hence the term "equal protection" as in the protection that laws provide to us from other people.

 

[ihopehefails]

you were going great (imho) right up until you got to:

This means that a small town full of Christians can have government funding for Christmas trees and a small town full of Muslims can fund <insert muslim ceremony here> without anyone else's right to believe or attend a different church being threatened simply because it separates church from state.

I appreciate your right to your own interpretation - But I disagree. And I hope the Constitution NEVER gets interpreted this way by the courts.

Why would you be opposed to this when it is the correct interpretation because "establishment" means to establish or to create so it means the government can't have an official church.

 

[ihopehefails]

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

Nope. It was designed to protect religious zealots ability to believe what they want such as creation, god allowed 911 and katrina to happen, and to even spawn Timothy McVeigh...


Sorry, your communist interpretation of the first amendment is shit out of luck.

 

[ihopehefails]

That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists.

Also, don't forget the evils of abortion.

If conservatives spent as much time, effort, and money on the children of unwanted pregnancy, then we could probably end abortion simply because there is an alternative.

Is that going to happen? Of course not. Conservatives only want to get them born. After that? Screw 'em. They don't care what happens.

When did it become my responsibility to take care of other people's children?

 

[AllieBaba]

I'll take care of other people's children. So long as the government allows me enough money to do so.