Their 'separation of church and state' is just ugly anti-religion discrimination

Irrelevant.

There is no law requiring it therefore it does not violate the first.

That tradition can be ended tomorrow and nothing would happen because it is simply an outdated custom like so many others we have.

It's not irrelevant that those you claim wanted a clear separation, did the opposite.
 
No I am using the first amendment.

The language isn't difficult to understand. As long as government stays out of religion then religious establishments can pretty much do whatever they want.


You misunderstand the basis for America's founding.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state, nor with any person or school not being allowed to have prayer.


While the Leftist view is that God is a fairy tale, and it is man, in the form of government that must be worshipped, it is counterintuitive to espouse this view and still claim to be American, as the Declaration of Independence is very clear as to the basis of our heritage:

There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence…

1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.



This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.



Understanding the above, shouldn’t any intelligent individual question the false Leftist narrative known as ‘separation of church and state,’ found no where in our founding documents?

“As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.” “Church And State In American History,” John F. Wilson


It is the Left, neo-Marxists, Democrats who lie about religion's place in America.
 
It's not irrelevant that those you claim wanted a clear separation, did the opposite.
Where did I ever say the words clear separation?

I remember distinctly saying that if Congress passes no law regarding religion or any other religious activity then it is not a violation of the first amendment.

So if a few politicians want to pray who cares? As I said it is an outdated custom which will eventually fall by the wayside
 
You misunderstand the basis for America's founding.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state, nor with any person or school not being allowed to have prayer.


While the Leftist view is that God is a fairy tale, and it is man, in the form of government that must be worshipped, it is counterintuitive to espouse this view and still claim to be American, as the Declaration of Independence is very clear as to the basis of our heritage:

There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence…

1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.



This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.



Understanding the above, shouldn’t any intelligent individual question the false Leftist narrative known as ‘separation of church and state,’ found no where in our founding documents?

“As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.” “Church And State In American History,” John F. Wilson


It is the Left, neo-Marxists, Democrats who lie about religion's place in America.
I do not misunderstand the First Amendment.
 
Where did I ever say the words clear separation?

I remember distinctly saying that if Congress passes no law regarding religion or any other religious activity then it is not a violation of the first amendment.

So if a few politicians want to pray who cares? As I said it is an outdated custom which will eventually fall by the wayside

It's not a few politicians. It's Congress. No law was passed here regarding religion either. What was ruled is that the government can not discriminate.
 
The American experiment is still
Why did the Founders agree to start Congress off with a prayer if they were so intent on keeping the government and religion seperate?
If you knew the history, you wouldn't have to ask.
 
The American experiment is still

If you knew the history, you wouldn't have to ask.

I'm not here to teach history lessons. If you disagree with anything I've said please state why. Meaningless nothing statements are nothing more than that. You said nothing.
 
The only law is one that creates funds that go to private schools. Once that is done the government can not discriminate.
Your understanding is a less than perfect as well if you think that prevailing case law is the original intent of the Founders, i.e., that liberty in education, for example, should only occur "once the government creates funds that go to private schools."

I could teach you something about the real-world imperative of natural law regarding ideological liberty as understood by the Founders and the likes of the late Renquist and Scalia, by Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, so that you might understand precisely where they are incrementally leading the Court. They are leading it back to the Frist Amendment's original intent. But you plug your ears at every turn. In the meantime, those of us who get it are winning this fight. We are going to get universal school choice funding.
 
Last edited:
Seidel is well versed in American history.

'The idea of government separate from religion was floating around during the Enlightenment. John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, and the greats of the day discussed it. But while other ideas in political science had real-world antecedents on which the founders could rely, there was no example of a truly secular government.

No other nation had sought to protect the ability of citizens to think freely by separating the government from religion and religion from the government. Until the theory was put into practice, true freedom of thought and even freedom of religion could not have existed. The Unites States realized those concepts because it embarked "upon a great and noble experiment....hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State," according to President John Tyler. America was the first nation to try this experiment; it invented the separation of state and church.

Pulitzer Prize winning author Gary Wills puts it nicely:
'That [separation], more than anything else, made the United States a new thing on earth, setting new tasks for religion, offering it new opportunities. Everything else in our Constitution -- separation of powers, balanced government, bicameralism, federalism -- had been anticipated both in theory and practice....But we invented nothing, except disestablishment. No other government in history had launced itself without the help of officially recognized gods and their state-connected ministers." '
(Seidel, The Founding Myth, p. 34)
 
Your understanding is a less than perfect as well if you think that prevailing case law is the original intent of the Founders, i.e., that liberty in education, for example, should only occur "once the government creates funds that go to private schools."

I could teach you something

No you couldn't.
 

Their 'separation of church and state' is just ugly anti-religion discrimination​

Opinion by Timothy P. Carney - Tuesday

The Left often tries to make you believe that discrimination is the only sin. Any law or policy or custom or fact of nature that might result in different people being treated differently is supposedly intolerable.

Most Democrats believe “singlism” — discrimination against the unmarried — is a real problem, according to a recent poll. Any joking about your own COVID case is “ablelism.” And the charge of “transphobia” gets thrown around for almost anything.

But don't be fooled. Leftists hold one form discrimination very dear. In fact, it is almost a first principle of their ideology.

The liberal minority on the Supreme Court showed on Tuesday its dedication to anti-religious discrimination. In an angry dissent in the case Carson v. Makin, the three liberal justices chastised the majority for striking down a law that explicitly discriminated against religious institutions.

The liberal justices called their principle “separation of church and state,” and claimed it was rooted in the First Amendment. But the legal or moral principle they champion — and on which the Maine law just struck down was based — is simply that government ought to discriminate against religious institutions.

Maine has many small and shrinking towns, some of which are pretty isolated. Rather than try to stand up or prop up unsustainable public schools where there are few students, Maine pays part of the tuition of parents in these rural towns to send their children to their private schools. But the law has two limitations: parents must choose a school that is accredited by the regional accreditation body, and the schools cannot be religious.

So the state will pay tuition for any accredited private school, teaching any ideology or worldview, backed by any organization — unless that accredited school is something people recognize to be religious.

This is laughable in an era when progressivism has effectively taken the status of a religion. Liberal counties and cities aren’t even pretending to be value-neutral anymore. They are explicitly using public schools to advance their religion, which is characterized in part by its absolutist moralism on transgenderism and the primacy of racial identify.

But back to Maine: parents could even send their kids to school in Canada or Switzerland under this tuition program. They could use these tax dollars to send their kids to all-girls’ schools, or to French-language schools. The schools eligible under this program could also be boarding schools. Schools receiving this money could have no set curriculum at all, like Bluehill Harbor School, or they could be explicit culture-warrior schools, such as Walnut Hill School for the Arts.

They just can’t be “sectarian,” which means the institutions cannot profess a system of belief that involves God.

This is obviously illegal discrimination, rooted in a history of unsavory anti-Catholic ideology. Yet in their angry dissent, the liberal justices claimed they were simply upholding “separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” Of course, the Constitution doesn’t mention a “separation of church of state.” It only forbids the establishment of a state religion, and prevents any restriction on religious practice.

The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This does not entail that if you do not discriminate against all religions, you are somehow implementing a theocracy.

You would have to be insane to believe that opening up private-school scholarship funding to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian schools was “establishing” a state religion. You would need to be an idiot to believe that letting some parents send their state scholarships to a religious school — any religion — is theocracy.

Instead of insanity or idiocy, I believe the smarter commentators and the liberal justices are motivated by a secular understanding of purity. They believe that government money is somehow defiled if any religious institution gets its hands on it.


This is perhaps bigotry. The rabid secularists really do seem to believe religious people have cooties. You can see the bigotry most clearly when folks on the Left falsely assume that Christian conservatives hate Jews and Muslims as much as the anti-Christian Left hates us.

It’s an ugly bigotry against religious institutions that infects too many on the Left. They can call it “separation of church and state” but what they really mean is “religious institutions are gross and should be relegated to second-class status.”

______________________________________________

The article is a brilliantly reasoned and scathing rebuke of the Court's remaining Marxist justices vis-a-vis the left's false and ideologically tyrannical doctrine of the separation of church and state. The decision is a long overdue adjustment against the trend set over 50 years ago by the liberal Warren Court and a huge step forward toward universal school choice.


Currrent court is reviewing it.
 
Just For The Record:

There is no such thing as 'Separation of Church & State'.

It is found NO WHERE in the US Constitution.

Its BS crrated by tbe left to justify persecution / discrimination of religion.
 
You're ridiculous. The whole point of the decision is that the mobocratic leftist assholes who control a blue state were taxing everybody and unconstitutionally discriminating against persons of religious ideology, subjecting them to special treatment as second-class citizens. That's precisely why the leftist's understanding of the doctrine of separation is stupid and unjust. You leftist morons don't even grasp the fact that your doctrine is that of the former Soviet Union.

The imperatives of natural and constitutional law demand universal school choice, wherein parents tax dollars follow their children to the school of their choice, whether the school be secular or religious. You leftist thugs of the Marxist doctrine merely want to wholly control the socialization of our nation's children per your ideology, and you stupidly think that common sense and decency doesn't see right through you.

Which religion do you think should have special rights?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top