What ever happened to the "separation" of church and state?

[ding]

There is nothing more right-wing, authoritarian than incorporating the power of religion/'church' into the state. There could hardly be a more un-American thing to do. Radicals who would seek such a thing would surely meet resolute, insurmountable resistance. Certainly, any faith that cannot convince must not be allowed to dominate.

Who exactly is trying to do that other than Muslims?

 

[Mudda]

There is nothing more right-wing, authoritarian than incorporating the power of religion/'church' into the state. There could hardly be a more un-American thing to do. Radicals who would seek such a thing would surely meet resolute, insurmountable resistance. Certainly, any faith that cannot convince must not be allowed to dominate.

Who exactly is trying to do that other than Muslims?

The GOP. Geez, you should be more informed about who you're voting for.

 

[pinqy]

NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT CALL FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

This is just another Libtard canard.

No one claims it uses those specific words, no. But Jefferson clearly felt that the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st amendment created "a wall of separation between Church & State." And while he didn't write the 1st Amendment, he was the author of the Virginia Stature of Religious Freedom on which the 1A was based.

So, in what way do you think does the Constitution allow for the State to interfere in Church matters or for a Church to require government conformity to its beliefs/practices?

 

[RWNJ]

NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT CALL FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

This is just another Libtard canard.

No one claims it uses those specific words, no. But Jefferson clearly felt that the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st amendment created "a wall of separation between Church & State." And while he didn't write the 1st Amendment, he was the author of the Virginia Stature of Religious Freedom on which the 1A was based.

So, in what way do you think does the Constitution allow for the State to interfere in Church matters or for a Church to require government conformity to its beliefs/practices?

Let's cut to the chase here. What do you believe the separation of Church and State means. Do think that a Christian, elected to office, should not be allowed to base his decisions on his deeply held religious beliefs? Do think a Christian should be elected in the first place? No one I know wants a theocracy. Christians simply want to be left alone to worship as they please. But the atheist Left won't even allow that. They are constantly trying to pass law that prohibit where and Christians can worship. They have removed God from our schools, our courts and the halls of Congress. The cultural and moral decay you see today is a direct result of that. These are the same type of people who have caused the self destruction of countless cultures. And now they have their sights set on America. I don't care what you believe. I speak the truth. History confirms it. There are ten signs of a dying culture. Several cultures have met their end from just a few of them. America suffers from all ten. And it's all thanks to liberal atheists. You are destroying this country. Why do you hate America so much?

 

[pinqy]

NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT CALL FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

This is just another Libtard canard.

No one claims it uses those specific words, no. But Jefferson clearly felt that the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st amendment created "a wall of separation between Church & State." And while he didn't write the 1st Amendment, he was the author of the Virginia Stature of Religious Freedom on which the 1A was based.

So, in what way do you think does the Constitution allow for the State to interfere in Church matters or for a Church to require government conformity to its beliefs/practices?

Let's cut to the chase here. What do you believe the separation of Church and State means.

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 and not opinions" (Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists)
In other words, that the government has no right to favor, especially through legislation, one set of religious beliefs over another. I follow the 3 parts of the Constitution that deal with this simply:
Article VI "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I think that's straightforward...no religious belief can be required or forbidden to hold a government office.

1 Amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Best summarized by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education of Ewing TP (1947) 330 U.S. 1
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164."

1 Amendment: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I see this as no one may be required or pressured to take part in any religious exercise (including prayer) and that no religious beliefs can be particularly favored or discouraged. Free exercise does NOT make one exempt from generally applicable laws, and it does NOT entitle anyone to use of government anything. :

Do think that a Christian, elected to office, should not be allowed to base his decisions on his deeply held religious beliefs?

I don't think that anyone in office should use his or her personal beliefs to dictate secular government policy.

Do think a Christian should be elected in the first place?

That's entirely an individual question. I don't think anyone should be excluded based solely on religious belief (unless that belief is that his/her religion should be dominant).

No one I know wants a theocracy. Christians simply want to be left alone to worship as they please. But the atheist Left won't even allow that. They are constantly trying to pass law that prohibit where and Christians can worship. They have removed God from our schools, our courts and the halls of Congress.

There are many people who may not want a theocracy, but do want their religion to be the dominant and officially or unofficially endorsed.

Please point out any law that restricts when and where Christians, and only Christians, can worship.
God in schools: Do you think the school should be telling children when, where, and how to pray? Do you think the school should be able to indoctrinate children in whatever religion they prefer? Do you think the courts should favor one religion or set of religions over another?

 

[there4eyeM]

The history books don't mention the decline of the ancient civilizations being the result of the "atheist Left"(sic). There might be other morally corrupting agents. Excessive wealth poorly understood and applied leads to problems, history shows. Hubris in diplomacy and military get a lot of coverage and have universally negative results. Excessively exclusive and hostile civilizations haven't faired well. Needless to continue for now. At any rate, authoritarian right régimes that have incorporated religions have been as vicious as authoritarian left ones that didn't (though, arguably, right and left have exploited resident religions when convenient).
Firebombing civilians is more morally corrosive than some form of universal health care.