Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Moonglow]

But you notice that those religious uses and activities in the government have not allowed them to proclaim one relion over another.

 

[Dr.Drock]

One quick question, let's put aside whether or not the Constitution says or implies it, but can I ask why there's people on this thread who are saying separation of church and state is or would be a bad thing?

I would think the more religious you are, the more you'd want such a separation so government can never take your religious rights away or promote a religion other than yours.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Considering how thickheaded some people here,

why not?

Besides, it is kinda retarded to respond with a sneer and emoticon.

when i'm desirous of your opinion, i'll give it to you.

When I want to hear an asshole, I will fart.

I gotta admit I often like Del's angry type of posting, but this is downright funny.

 

[CryingKoala]

you gonna post that in every thread you're in, wetbrain?

Considering how thickheaded some people here are,

why not?

Besides, it is kinda retarded to respond with a sneer and emoticon.

Liberals are real quick to point out the intentions of the founding fathers when they can twist it to fit their agenda. When they cant they call the constitiution a flexible document and proceed to wipe their butts on it.

What are you smoking?

The only people as of late who have been proclaiming they knew the exact intentions of the founding fathers (and that they somehow spoke with one voice on any given subject) are those of the far right.

Its not even the mainstream conservatives or Republicans, but the extreme nutballs who want to dismantle personal liberties one bit at a time. David Barton and his acolytes like Glenn Beck (who frequently cites Barton) are the most visible examples.

You never see a liberal "original intent" argument. That is strictly the intellectually dishonest province of the far right.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You are making a phony argument that the Establishment Clause is meant to banish religion from the political sphere.

I don't have a problem with the classical construct of Separation of Church and State; however, the Establishment Clause as rendered by the Court since the Warren era, which disregards the equally compelling demands of the Free Exercise Clause, has all but erased the fundamental rights of individual liberty (i.e., ideological free association) and parental authority within the public education system, for example. And the Warren Court's Soviet-style imposition of the construct has encouraged a generation of leftists to believe that religious expression within the political sphere should be banished. They are idiots, of course, but not because they fail to understand the ramifications of the Warren Court's gibberish, which resides in a make believe world where educational and cultural institutions exist in ideological vacuums.

As I said before, as long as the government embraces all faiths and does not exclude others or engage in blatant sectarian acts, religious expression is OK. Ecumenialism is the byword here not atheism. Inclusiveness of all faiths.

This is baby talk. Gibberish. Or insofar as it has any discernable meaning, it suggests something tyrannical. Government has no business embracing any "faith" whatsoever but that which is outlined in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Each and every individual has the right to practice his religion and express his religious beliefs whenever and wherever he pleases, insofar as he does not violate the fundamental rights of others.

What are you really stumping for when you attack Separation of Church and State?

-Do you really want the ability of the government to engage in sectarian discrimination?
-Do you really have so little respect for faiths besides your own?
-Do you understand how this protects Free Exercise of Religion?

I attack the leftist's retarded construct of Separation of Church and State, for it does not separate church and state, but imposes the depravity of secular humanism and materialism.

I don't have to respect other faiths.

The leftist's construct does not protect the free exercise of religion at all.

 

[CryingKoala]

I don't have a problem with the classical construct of Separation of Church and State;

I am not sure you understand it either. Since you clearly have trouble with the idea of government embracing religious inclusiveness (ecumenicism).

The government is allowed to give itself over to religious expression because religion is an undeniable part of our culture. But it can't be seen as playing favorites. It can't use such expressions to give the impression of exclusion or sectarianism.

What you dismiss as so much "baby-talk" is the fundamentally accepted way in which the government is supposed to handle religion. It is not the exclusion of religion from all aspects of government, merely that it stays as far away from sectarian interests as possible. It must accept and embrace all faiths if it is to protect the rights to express them.


I don't have to respect other faiths.

That's fine for a personal belief, but our government HAS to do that.


I attack the leftist's retarded construct of Separation of Church and State, for it does not separate church and state, but imposes the depravity of secular humanism and materialism.

That's because you are working under the foolish assumption that Separation of Church and State means atheism (which is untrue) and seem to have a problem with the concept of Ecumenicism (you admitted that much)

As for secular humanism and materialism, that's just the price of living in a modern world. We have a marketplace of ideas. What you call depraved, others call enlightened. And visa versa.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't have a problem with the classical construct of Separation of Church and State;

I am not sure you understand it either. Since you clearly have trouble with the idea of government embracing religious inclusiveness (ecumenicism).

The government is allowed to give itself over to religious expression because religion is an undeniable part of our culture. But it can't be seen as playing favorites. It can't use such expressions to give the impression of exclusion or sectarianism.

But what does this mean, really, relative to the real world? Currently, leftists thugs are imposing their materialist worldview in the sciences, in sex education, for example, while arguing that the potentialities of classical empiricism constitute an unconstitutional imposition on others in the schools.

But their impositions are not unconstitutional!?

What you dismiss as so much "baby-talk" is the fundamentally accepted way in which the government is supposed to handle religion. It is not the exclusion of religion from all aspects of government, merely that it stays as far away from sectarian interests as possible. It must accept and embrace all faiths if it is to protect the rights to express them.

Institutions do not exist in ideological vacuums. You're describing a relativist free-for-all as if relativism were not a philosophical worldview in and of itself, anathema to millions. Beyond your scholastic ABCs, do you grasp the real-world applications of the universal constructs of liberty and their imperatives?

That's because you are working under the foolish assumption that Separation of Church and State means atheism (which is untrue) and seem to have a problem with the concept of Ecumenicism (you admitted that much)

I'm not operating under any such delusion; I know the history of ideas, particularly those related to the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition, and the Warren Court’s rendition of the construct of the Separation of Church and State is utterly foreign to that tradition, to that of the Founders. It harks back to Continental European collectivists—Jacobinians, Rousseaunians, Marxists.

As for secular humanism and materialism, that's just the price of living in a modern world. We have a marketplace of ideas. What you call depraved, others call enlightened. And visa versa.

Modernity has nothing to do with it. The ideas of secular humanism and materialism are as old as mankind . . . a rose by any other name. The issue here is the government imposing leftist claptrap in the public sector against my fundamental rights of ideological free association and parental authority while suppressing the expressions of my worldview in the same.

 

[CryingKoala]

But what does this mean, really, relative to the real world? Currently, leftists thugs are imposing their materialist worldview in the sciences, in sex education, for example, while arguing that the potentialities of classical empiricism constitute an unconstitutional imposition on others in the schools.

But their impositions are not unconstitutional!?


No. They aren't. Its just your religious views are so out of touch with reality.

You are getting silly here. You are railing against things like the entire realm of rationality. This is not the place for it. Science is not political in worldview. Its not religious either.
Sex education is a public health issue.

Your views are so extremely off kilter that all science/rational thought seems to be against you. All of this is irrelevant to the topic. I am not going to discuss it further. Take it to another thread.


Institutions do not exist in ideological vacuums. You're describing a relativist free-for-all as if relativism were not a philosophical worldview in and of itself, anathema to millions. Beyond your scholastic ABCs, do you grasp the real-world applications of the universal constructs of liberty and their imperatives?

What a load of self-referential jargon crap!

What I am describing is showing respect and deference to all faiths to the exclusion and persecution of none. The government is not designed to recognize your religious views or anyone's specific ones as the only ones to be noted. You do not seem to grasp the idea of religious freedom in general. You are laboring under the narcissistic delusion that it must only acknowledge your views and nobody else. You also don't really seem to have much respect for the free exercise of religion either unless it pertains to your own faith. Naturally you are taking an inherently anti-democratic view.


I know the history of ideas, particularly those related to the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition, and the Warren Court’s rendition of the construct of the Separation of Church and State is utterly foreign to that tradition, to that of the Founders. It harks back to Continental European collectivists—Jacobinians, Rousseaunians, Marxists.

Yes, you are delusional. It has been established a while ago that Separation of Church and State predated the nation by about a century and was clearly in the mind of the founders, especially those from the 2 states which were set up as refuges from religious persecution. [See the works of William Penn and Roger Williams]. It is not a modern construct nor even a secular one. The long persecuted Anababptist sects such as the Seekers (and later Quakers) embodied it in their religious practices long before it gained ground as a political ideal.

 

[Truthmatters]

June 3, 1811



Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself.
James Madison


James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman

When the "father of the constitution" says this then you know the founders intended there to be a separation between church and state.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I wrote: But what does this mean, really, relative to the real world? Currently, leftists thugs are imposing their materialist worldview in the sciences, in sex education, for example, while arguing that the potentialities of classical empiricism constitute an unconstitutional imposition on others in the schools.

But their impositions are not unconstitutional!?

No. They aren't. Its just your religious views are so out of touch with reality.

You are getting silly here. You are railing against things like the entire realm of rationality. This is not the place for it. Science is not political in worldview. Its not religious either.
Sex education is a public health issue.

Your views are so extremely off kilter that all science/rational thought seems to be against you. All of this is irrelevant to the topic. I am not going to discuss it further. Take it to another thread.

What's silly? What views? What irrationality? What's off kilter? Science most certainly does rest on one metaphysical apriority or another. You don't know that? You don't understand that? It's self-evident. What else are you wrong about? You have no idea what my religious and scientific views are.

Of course science isn't politics in the strictest sense, nor religion. What's wrong with you?

And the content of sex education? The nuts or bolts of sex or the humanist's sexual morality, such as it is? Ideological neutrality? Where? When? How?



LOL! Behold the leftist thug:

I'm going to impose my worldview. The Constitution allows it. I'm right, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't protect dissent or the free exercise of dissenting views. I won't disuss it . . . just impose whatever I please. Shut up or else.​

Just as I suspected, you're just another two-bit-punk statist thug. Your construct of Separation is not that of classical liberalism at all.

Take your ass to another thread, punk.



I wrote: Institutions do not exist in ideological vacuums. You're describing a relativist free-for-all as if relativism were not a philosophical worldview in and of itself, anathema to millions. Beyond your scholastic ABCs, do you grasp the real-world applications of the universal constructs of liberty and their imperatives?

What a load of self-referential jargon crap!

Exactly, you don't know what I'm talking about, you education-by-rote zombie.

What I am describing is showing respect and deference to all faiths to the exclusion and persecution of none.

LOL! Liar!

The government is not designed to recognize your religious views or anyone's specific ones as the only ones to be noted.

Right. That's what I said.

You do not seem to grasp the idea of religious freedom in general.

Oh?

You are laboring under the narcissistic delusion that it must only acknowledge your views and nobody else.

Silly rabbit, I'm not arguing any such thing. That's you in the above all day long.

You also don't really seem to have much respect for the free exercise of religion either unless it pertains to your own faith. Naturally you are taking an inherently anti-democratic view.

Universal free expression of religion is anti-democratic? Since when? You're insane . . . no, not really, just clueless. You don't grasp what I'm telling you.



I wrote: I know the history of ideas, particularly those related to the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition, and the Warren Court’s rendition of the construct of the Separation of Church and State is utterly foreign to that tradition, to that of the Founders. It harks back to Continental European collectivists—Jacobinians, Rousseaunians, Marxists.

Yes, you are delusional. It has been established a while ago that Separation of Church and State predated the nation by about a century and was clearly in the mind of the founders. . . .

What is wrong with you? I'm saying that the construct of the Founders is not that of the Warren Court; of course the construct predates the founding of this nation. Where did I say otherwise?

And the construct of separation of classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition was best articulated by John Locke (17th Century).

The construct of Continental Europe and that of the Anglo-American tradition are not the same thing. That's what you don’t understand. That's what you don’t know.

Amateur.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: separation of church and state not in the Constitution

Note to self:
Neither is Consent of the Governed
Yet that is the basis of law as legally binding social contracts

It is stated in the Declaration of Independence
and is in the Spirit of the laws, but not expressly stated
in the body of the Constitution or the Amendments either

Would you want to be under the laws
WITHOUT Consent of the Governed
just because it is not literally written in there???

Not I!

It is also IMPLIED in Article 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights
in terms of the authority of the people having the right
to abolish reform or alter the government as expedient
with respect to a Republican form of government

As for "separation of church and state" the concept
is derived from the DUAL clause in the First Amendment
about NEITHER imposing NOR prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

It goes both ways.

So the problem is when this clause is only interpreted
one way, and not equally balanced where neither the
state nor church impose on each other. Laws should be
based on CONSENT so this is not an issue.

Where there is agreement, then neither church nor state
is imposing on each other, even if they are both enforcing the same laws.
As long as the public consents to a policy, that is not seen as an imposition.

That is why we still have laws on murder, marriage, the death penalty
even though the state is basically endorsing or getting involved
in religious/spiritual matters of the people and their personal choices.

Because people CONSENT to these laws, then there is no contesting them
as violating religious freedom.

Only where we do not consent, then we start complaining
and blaming church-state violations of religious freedom etc.

What we REALLY mean is our CONSENT is being violated.
And again, ironically, Consent of the Governed is not
expressly written into the laws though it is the basis of all legal contracts.
Go figure! Perhaps it is so obvious it is assumed in practice?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Look everybody, behold the pseudo-intellectual bull of the brainwashed leftist who failed recognize the distinction between the continental European democratic tradition and that of the Anglo-American tradition.

He has no idea what I’m talking about.

You're a phony, koala, a know-nothing, talking to a scholar of the history of ideas and events.

Go on. Keep misrepresenting me. I’ll make you look like a fool up and down this thread.

 

[emilynghiem]

Universal free expression of religion is anti-democratic? Since when? You're insane . . . no, not really, just clueless. You don't grasp what I'm telling you.

It is only anti-democratic if it is imposed on people without their consent.

If some agenda is legislated without taking responsibility for
the burden it imposes on people who did not consent to it
THAT might be unconstitutional.

To avoid imposition, one way or another,
the solution would be to mediate and resolve any such cultural conflict
to the satisfaction of any parties bringing up an issue of representation.

So the final solution reflects all parties and does not favor some over others,
or cause one party to have to fund or support biased policies or programs
they are religiously or morally opposed to.

Most people don't want to go through this much trouble to be
perfectly constitutional or politically correct!

Thus we end up debating back and forth, and just using
majority rule politics to outnumber or overrule the other opposing views
by political force or vote. Not really constitutional but since the
Constitution gives us the freedom to choose that route, it
is considered lawful though in spirit it contradicts
equal freedom representation and protection of all interests.

People do it anyway. You wonder why everyone
comes across as a hypocrite to people who disagree.
On some level we are all hypocrites if we don't REALLY
include the opposing opinions and interests in policy decisions!
That is not truly equal representation to do that!

 

[Gadawg73]

You are making a phony argument that the Establishment Clause is meant to banish religion from the political sphere.

I don't have a problem with the classical construct of Separation of Church and State; however, the Establishment Clause as rendered by the Court since the Warren era, which disregards the equally compelling demands of the Free Exercise Clause, has all but erased the fundamental rights of individual liberty (i.e., ideological free association) and parental authority within the public education system, for example. And the Warren Court's Soviet-style imposition of the construct has encouraged a generation of leftists to believe that religious expression within the political sphere should be banished. They are idiots, of course, but not because they fail to understand the ramifications of the Warren Court's gibberish, which resides in a make believe world where educational and cultural institutions exist in ideological vacuums.

As I said before, as long as the government embraces all faiths and does not exclude others or engage in blatant sectarian acts, religious expression is OK. Ecumenialism is the byword here not atheism. Inclusiveness of all faiths.

This is baby talk. Gibberish. Or insofar as it has any discernable meaning, it suggests something tyrannical. Government has no business embracing any "faith" whatsoever but that which is outlined in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Each and every individual has the right to practice his religion and express his religious beliefs whenever and wherever he pleases, insofar as he does not violate the fundamental rights of others.

What are you really stumping for when you attack Separation of Church and State?

-Do you really want the ability of the government to engage in sectarian discrimination?
-Do you really have so little respect for faiths besides your own?
-Do you understand how this protects Free Exercise of Religion?

I attack the leftist's retarded construct of Separation of Church and State, for it does not separate church and state, but imposes the depravity of secular humanism and materialism.

I don't have to respect other faiths.

The leftist's construct does not protect the free exercise of religion at all.

You are full of hot air and no facts.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various religous beliefs be they Christian or my denomination, Zen Baptist.

The DOI is not a legal document of any kind.
The DOI has NO legal authority over ANY LAW.
The DOI has no standing anywhere in this country.
ALL the DOI did was make an argument AT THAT TIME, that the ties between the US and Britain WERE OVER. 200 years ago , THAT ENDED.
You have broken your own record. You are 200 years late on this argument.
The Founders constructed a secular government. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
During that convention many years ago your side argued against a secular government.
You lost. Suck it up Moe ,go to the 50 yard line and shake the other guys hand. Don't like it?
Move to Iran. They do it your way there. Delta is ready when you are.

 

[Lokiate]

Look everybody, behold the pseudo-intellectual bull of the brainwashed leftist who failed recognize the distinction between the continental European democratic tradition and that of the Anglo-American tradition.

He has no idea what I’m talking about.

You're a phony, koala, a know-nothing, talking to a scholar of the history of ideas and events.

Go on. Keep misrepresenting me. I’ll make you look like a fool up and down this thread.

Nice bitch fit. Cry moar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. Rawlings is simply put out that she cannot dicate the religious environment of secular, state-supported classrooms.

Home school or private school, M. D., on your on dime and time, not mine.

 

[CryingKoala]

Look everybody, behold the pseudo-intellectual bull of the brainwashed leftist who failed recognize the distinction between the continental European democratic tradition and that of the Anglo-American tradition.

He has no idea what I’m talking about.

You're a phony, koala, a know-nothing, talking to a scholar of the history of ideas and events.

Go on. Keep misrepresenting me. I’ll make you look like a fool up and down this thread.

Misrepresentation, nothing. People see your spiel for what it is. A psuedointellectual hissy-fit.

From what little of your position you did explain, you have shown:
-You have no respect for the religious beliefs of others
-You don't understand what ecumencism means or how I referenced it before
-You want people to respect your religious beliefs to the detriment of anyone who does not follow such beliefs.

Whatever distinction you think I missed is purely because you never bothered to explain yourself outside of throwing presumptive insulting assumptions of my position. I really don't see any point to responding to you until you do bother to make your position clear.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Universal free expression of religion is anti-democratic? Since when? You're insane . . . no, not really, just clueless. You don't grasp what I'm telling you.

It is only anti-democratic if it is imposed on people without their consent.

Indeed.

And your standard is essentially that of natural or constitutional law, and that is the standard that the Court putatively applied. We're in the arena of unalienable rights. Such cannot be legitimately violated by any faction, and no faction can legitimately consent to surrender them.

The political construct of the consent of the governed goes to the establishment of the social contract, not to the shifting political whims of factions relative to inalienable rights after the establishment of the social contract.

The essential ratio of the Warren Court's line of decidendi, with which I agree, by the way, was that it was unconstitutional for the public education systems of the several states to impose or favor the tenets of any given religion, as such constitutes a situation wherein the states would be imposing notions of belief on non-religious or other-religious persons in violation of the fundamental rights of ideological liberty and free association protected by the First Amendment for all individuals, presumably, as that was the standard upheld at the federal level with regard to the classical construct of separation of the Anglo-American political tradition. In other words, I would have had no problem with the Court imposing the classical construct of separation on the states via the 14th Amendment, for the first time, by the way, had it rendered the matter correctly.

But that's not what the leftist Warren Court did. Instead of apply the balanced rendition of the classical construct of the Anglo-American tradition, which prohibits the state from imposing or suppressing the religious beliefs and practices of any given individual, the Court imposed the collectivist rendition of separation from the Continental European democratic tradition.

And that is what we have been stuck with ever since.

Since no institution of education or culture exists in an ideological vacuum, what would have been the resolution of the problem had the Court applied the classical construct?

The answer to that question reveals the tyrannical hypocrisy of the political left, the sheep of which stupidly think that my religious beliefs would have been imposed on them had the Court done what I'm alluding to. Unlike most of the leftist elite, including the leftist members of the Warren Court, who know precisely what they're doing and why, the sheep are just the brainwashed products of an increasingly dysfunctional education system of mediocrity who do not know the pre-colonial history or the philosophy of their political heritage.

They are the simpletons of the new sociopathic-like lack of empathy in contemporary America, which goes hand-in-hand with the increasingly appalling lack of common sense and decency among a tattooed, sexualized, violent, foul-mouthed and imbecilic youth, which does not perceive the obvious violations of others' fundamental rights in the public sector. They are only cognizant of policies or practices that portend or constitute violations of their fundamental rights.

Welcome to the tyranny of moral relativism, the thuggish mindlessness of multiculturalism. Welcome to the collectivist paradigm imposed by the Court in the place of individual liberty. Welcome to the decline and fall of the United States.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D. Rawlings is simply put out that she cannot dicate the religious environment of secular, state-supported classrooms.

Home school or private school, M. D., on your on dime and time, not mine.

Not true, liar. Your just a simpleton who does not understand the concept of universal ideological liberty or how it would be implemented with respect to the requirements of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in the public education system.

I have no desire to impose my worldview on you at all, but I am fighting to wrest control of the education system from the statist, tyrannical left and turn it back over to the parental authority of the people, you brainwashed dimwit.

In the meantime, the only faction in our society that is imposing its worldview on the rest of us in the schools is the imbecilic left, the jackbooted, fascist thugs of political correctness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand classical liberalism, while you obviously do not. The parents are empowered to influence, advise, and elect school boards. But the public school district and its policies are not democratically dictated by local home rule, period. You right wing thugs are never going to get your way.