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

[amrchaos]

By the way, what is wrong about a city putting up a religious display, anyway?

I am still trying to figure that one out

 

[Texanmike]

Well I guess I don't think the 300th person should be forced to move, we had that kind of mindset when we had a bunch of racist laws on the books. You gotta look out for the rights of minority groups/opinions.

I just don't understand the mindset you have. You're not "lookign out for the rights of the minority" you are dictating a lifestyle for 309 million people. You are dicatating that 299 people must yeild their moral convictions to one person and further more you are saying that in order to "look out for the minority" that the majority don't even have the option to find a system of local government that suits them. How ridiculous is that? Where do you send the 299 people? What if they go buy the land and found their own city and name it "noporkallowedopolis"? Would you tell them that they can't do that either? That is insane.

Mike

I don't see how separation of church and state is "dictating a lifestyle", that sounds like a 14 year girl doing a hyperventilating type of dramatic over-reaction.

Separation of church and state literally dictates nothing to private citizens.

Sure it does. It isn't something that you (or I for that matter) understand, but who the hell are you to tell those 299 people that their desires are unrealist. Why not just let them have their damn city and mind your own business?

Mike

 

[Dr.Drock]

I just don't understand the mindset you have. You're not "lookign out for the rights of the minority" you are dictating a lifestyle for 309 million people. You are dicatating that 299 people must yeild their moral convictions to one person and further more you are saying that in order to "look out for the minority" that the majority don't even have the option to find a system of local government that suits them. How ridiculous is that? Where do you send the 299 people? What if they go buy the land and found their own city and name it "noporkallowedopolis"? Would you tell them that they can't do that either? That is insane.

Mike

I don't see how separation of church and state is "dictating a lifestyle", that sounds like a 14 year girl doing a hyperventilating type of dramatic over-reaction.

Separation of church and state literally dictates nothing to private citizens.

Sure it does. It isn't something that you (or I for that matter) understand, but who the hell are you to tell those 299 people that their desires are unrealist. Why not just let them have their damn city and mind your own business?

Mike

They can have their own city, they can build nothing but churches if they want and build their houses out of Bibles, all under separation of church and state.

If they want to pass a law that says a jew should be arrested for being jewish, the lone jew in the town of 300 people should be protected. (obviously that's just a hypothetical)

 

[Texanmike]

I don't see how separation of church and state is "dictating a lifestyle", that sounds like a 14 year girl doing a hyperventilating type of dramatic over-reaction.

Separation of church and state literally dictates nothing to private citizens.

Sure it does. It isn't something that you (or I for that matter) understand, but who the hell are you to tell those 299 people that their desires are unrealist. Why not just let them have their damn city and mind your own business?

Mike

They can have their own city, they can build nothing but churches if they want and build their houses out of Bibles, all under separation of church and state.

If they want to pass a law that says a jew should be arrested for being jewish, the lone jew in the town of 300 people should be protected. (obviously that's just a hypothetical)

Clearly that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about having a cross at city hall. I agree you shouldn't be able to harass people of other religions but we've gone too far the other way now.

A simple amendment which prevented the restriction of practice of any (or no) religion and removed the federal government from the mix entirely would accomplish enough to keep us both happy I think.


Mike

 

[JakeStarkey]

TexanMike is as entitled to his own opinion as anyone else, regardless how wrong it may be, as in this case. TexanMike is not entitled to his own definitions and facts, though, and he does not get that.

 

[Texanmike]

TexanMike is as entitled to his own opinion as anyone else, regardless how wrong it may be, as in this case. TexanMike is not entitled to his own definitions and facts, though, and he does not get that.

This is laughable. What have I defined? What facts have I misconstrued? How is my opinion incorrect? Or do you just not like what I said and felt the need to declare it?

Mike

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Lol it's always cute how kids call anyone who disagrees with them on anything as a "lefty", with obviously zero clue what a lefty is.

It's always amusing when numbskulls parrot leftist nonsense and then pretend that first class intellects don't know the difference.

But it's sad that you don't take minority rights seriously.

And you look like an ass, given that I just wrote: "it is both possible and necessary to preserve each individual's fundamental rights within the collective without damaging the rule of the majority relative to the general provisions of everyday governance."

But like I said: "don't ask lefty how that's done; he hasn't the first clue."

And so you obviously have got me all wrong because you don't recognize the language of individual liberty, the dynamics of protecting the inalienable, fundamental rights of all individuals, including those of minorities within the collective.

Lefty doesn't protect the rights of minorities either; he merely imposes the ideology of the minority. His solution, once again, is a collectivist monstrosity directed by a central authority, which unnecessarily suppresses the fundamental rights of the majority.

Lefty is a liar, a thief and a thug.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sure it does. It isn't something that you (or I for that matter) understand, but who the hell are you to tell those 299 people that their desires are unrealist. Why not just let them have their damn city and mind your own business?

Mike

They can have their own city, they can build nothing but churches if they want and build their houses out of Bibles, all under separation of church and state.

If they want to pass a law that says a jew should be arrested for being jewish, the lone jew in the town of 300 people should be protected. (obviously that's just a hypothetical)

Clearly that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about having a cross at city hall. I agree you shouldn't be able to harass people of other religions but we've gone too far the other way now.

A simple amendment which prevented the restriction of practice of any (or no) religion and removed the federal government from the mix entirely would accomplish enough to keep us both happy I think.


Mike

Let's look at it a different way, what if a politician runs as a christian, then exposes himself as muslim once in office and puts lines and artifacts from the Quran all over the capital building. I can assure you people would be absolutely having a meltdown if something like that happened and it wasn't the normal pro-christian message that government talks.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Lol it's always cute how kids call anyone who disagrees with them on anything as a "lefty", with obviously zero clue what a lefty is.

It's always amusing when numbskulls parrot leftist nonsense and then pretend that first class intellects don't know the difference.

But it's sad that you don't take minority rights seriously.

And you look like an ass, given that I just wrote: "it is both possible and necessary to preserve each individual's fundamental rights within the collective without damaging the rule of the majority relative to the general provisions of everyday governance."

But like I said: "don't ask lefty how that's done; he hasn't the first clue."

And so you obviously have got me all wrong because you don't recognize the language of individual liberty, the dynamics of protecting the inalienable, fundamental rights of all individuals, including those of minorities within the collective.

Lefty doesn't protect the rights of minorities either; he merely imposes the ideology of the minority. His solution, once again, is a collectivist monstrosity directed by a central authority, which unnecessarily suppresses the fundamental rights of the majority.

Lefty is a liar, a thief and a thug.

Again, I'm sure you're a cute kid, school starts soon I'm sure you're pissed about that.

Have a good one, and now is the time to declare yourself winner.

 

[Texanmike]

They can have their own city, they can build nothing but churches if they want and build their houses out of Bibles, all under separation of church and state.

If they want to pass a law that says a jew should be arrested for being jewish, the lone jew in the town of 300 people should be protected. (obviously that's just a hypothetical)

Clearly that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about having a cross at city hall. I agree you shouldn't be able to harass people of other religions but we've gone too far the other way now.

A simple amendment which prevented the restriction of practice of any (or no) religion and removed the federal government from the mix entirely would accomplish enough to keep us both happy I think.


Mike

Let's look at it a different way, what if a politician runs as a christian, then exposes himself as muslim once in office and puts lines and artifacts from the Quran all over the capital building. I can assure you people would be absolutely having a meltdown if something like that happened and it wasn't the normal pro-christian message that government talks.

That's kind of a disingenuous argument though. We're going to assuem someone is running with a secret agenda? I mean I could say that about any issue. It seems like that's why we have recall referendums isn't it? And, for the record, that's exactly what I would say. Have your recall referendum and have it changed. I grew up in a country with religious persecution, I know what it can be like. I'm telling you that I don't want the federal government to be a party in it. Its none of their damn business what the citizens of a city want to do.

Mike

 

[Dr.Drock]

Clearly that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about having a cross at city hall. I agree you shouldn't be able to harass people of other religions but we've gone too far the other way now.

A simple amendment which prevented the restriction of practice of any (or no) religion and removed the federal government from the mix entirely would accomplish enough to keep us both happy I think.


Mike

Let's look at it a different way, what if a politician runs as a christian, then exposes himself as muslim once in office and puts lines and artifacts from the Quran all over the capital building. I can assure you people would be absolutely having a meltdown if something like that happened and it wasn't the normal pro-christian message that government talks.

That's kind of a disingenuous argument though. We're going to assuem someone is running with a secret agenda? I mean I could say that about any issue. It seems like that's why we have recall referendums isn't it? And, for the record, that's exactly what I would say. Have your recall referendum and have it changed. I grew up in a country with religious persecution, I know what it can be like. I'm telling you that I don't want the federal government to be a party in it. Its none of their damn business what the citizens of a city want to do.

Mike

I agree, it's not the federal governments business what private citizens do.

It's not disingenuous at all, you're saying we should have a recall referendum if a politician says he's converted to a different religion? That's where we'll disagree again, and I'll side with the protection of minority rights.

If people agree with elected officials being able to choose to put christian stuff all over buildings, then they shouldn't take issue if one does the same thing with islam since they take no issue with religious involvement in government.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In other words, Dr. Drock, given that you apparently lean libertarian, how did you manage to think from what I wrote that I don't care about minority rights? I obviously do. What else was I to think when you utterly missed the point I was making?

 

[Dr.Drock]

In other words, Dr. Drock, given that you apparently lean libertarian, how did you manage to think from what I wrote that I don't care about minority rights? I obviously do. What else was I to think when you utterly missed the point I was making?

It's hard to pick out the point of what someone is making when their first post in the discussion is littered with childish insults.



Then I made the mistake of following up childish insults with childish insults of my own when I should've just ignored you in the first place.

 

[Texanmike]

Let's look at it a different way, what if a politician runs as a christian, then exposes himself as muslim once in office and puts lines and artifacts from the Quran all over the capital building. I can assure you people would be absolutely having a meltdown if something like that happened and it wasn't the normal pro-christian message that government talks.

That's kind of a disingenuous argument though. We're going to assuem someone is running with a secret agenda? I mean I could say that about any issue. It seems like that's why we have recall referendums isn't it? And, for the record, that's exactly what I would say. Have your recall referendum and have it changed. I grew up in a country with religious persecution, I know what it can be like. I'm telling you that I don't want the federal government to be a party in it. Its none of their damn business what the citizens of a city want to do.

Mike

I agree, it's not the federal governments business what private citizens do.

It's not disingenuous at all, you're saying we should have a recall referendum if a politician says he's converted to a different religion? That's where we'll disagree again, and I'll side with the protection of minority rights.

If people agree with elected officials being able to choose to put christian stuff all over buildings, then they shouldn't take issue if one does the same thing with islam since they take no issue with religious involvement in government.

Good Doctor,

If you'are a Libertarian, then you agree that the rights reside with the people and the Constituion grants the federal government very limited powers. The people grant certain authorities to the states who, may, in turn grant some of those authorities to the federal government.

My point is that if citizens of a city want to grant that authority to the states, but the necessary 75% of the states have not yeilded the authority to make this call to the federal government then why is it a party in the discussion? The states explicitly prohibited the federal government from making any call with regards to religion. We did not give them the authority to prohibit or allow religion. Congress shall make no law... not congress shall make a law prohibiting.

Mike

p.s. I'm not trying to be difficult. I think that whenever we inject the federal government to an area of our lives that we want them in they take 15 that we don't want them in. I also do believe in the bottom up version of government. I think that you should have as much freedom as you want and when you find a large majority of you want that regulated at a level above your head, you should band together with your fellow citizens and pass it off to the next level.

 

[edjax1952]

I came to this thread to try to get some perspective of what the general attitude of the participants would be. The general attitude of the participants seems to be that if one cannot become a legal expert in their opinion of a matter, they should remain silent.

The one thing I did agree on in the thread is that it is not the role of any public venue to re-inforce anyone's personal religious beliefs. That should be the responsibility of a persons parents, mentor or of the person himself.

If something as close to the human sole as religion or lack thereof is solidly placed in ones being, justification or debate is not necessary. One reason we bicker so much on these issues is that we do not have a solid understanding, given to us by our parents or mentors, of our own beliefs and feel we must find a way to take sides in a public areana on the subject. I feel no need to show my religious beliefs or justify thier existence through public display. In this way I personally separate my "church" from government.

 

[Texanmike]

I came to this thread to try to get some perspective of what the general attitude of the participants would be. The general attitude of the participants seems to be that if one cannot become a legal expert in their opinion of a matter, they should remain silent.

The one thing I did agree on in the thread is that it is not the role of any public venue to re-inforce anyone's personal religious beliefs. That should be the responsibility of a persons parents, mentor or of the person himself.

If something as close to the human sole as religion or lack thereof is solidly places in ones being, justification or debate is not necessary. One reason we bicker so much on these issues is that we do not have a solid understanding, given to us by our parents or mentors, of our own beliefs and feel we must find a way to take sides in a public areana on the subject. I feel no need to show my religious beliefs or justify thier existence through public display. In this way I personally separate my "church" from government.

I don't understand the bolded. I was unaware that there was a legal expert in the bunch.

Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

Separation of church and state was important to the Founders only in the sense that government would have no power over the Church and the Church would have no power over the government. The first would be a direct violation of unalienable rights; the second would reinstitute the miserable system in which corrupt Popes, Archbishops, or Mullah or any facsimile of these could enforce an establishment of religion which the Constitution expressly forbids.

It was never intended to prevent a prayer at a football game or a creche on a courthouse lawn or kids reading the Bible at show and tell.

All of Islam objects to this concept as do some radical Atheists and a few radical Christians and others, all of whom would prefer to see their concept of religion as the only one tolerated. The First Amendment clearly protects us from the ambitions of these radicals and the chances of the First Amendment being nullified or changed are nil EXCEPT to change wording to strengthen the concept as the courts too often get it wrong.

Amending the Constitution is a really big deal. Over the past 223 YEARS, of thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

Separation of church and state was important to the Founders only in the sense that government would have no power over the Church and the Church would have no power over the government. The first would be a direct violation of unalienable rights; the second would reinstitute the miserable system in which corrupt Popes, Archbishops, or Mullah or any facsimile of these could enforce an establishment of religion which the Constitution expressly forbids.

It was never intended to prevent a prayer at a football game or a creche on a courthouse lawn or kids reading the Bible at show and tell.

All of Islam objects to this concept as do some radical Atheists and a few radical Christians and others, all of whom would prefer to see their concept of religion as the only one tolerated. The First Amendment clearly protects us from the ambitions of these radicals and the chances of the First Amendment being nullified or changed are nil EXCEPT to change wording to strengthen the concept as the courts too often get it wrong.

Amending the Constitution is a really big deal. Over the past Of thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

My son played 4 seasons of high school football. He and every one of his team mates prayed all they wanted to in every game. Same with any citizen or fan there.
What you can not do is ORGANIZE a group prayer where everyone prays or watches everyone else pray to the organized by the school effort.
And I sit in amazement about what the big deal is with that.
You can not go 2 hours, watch a football game without having a group prayer? Why can't you pray to yourself? Do you have to do it inagroup to prove something?
Why does one have to read the Bible at show and tell? Why can't parents teach their kids religion at home?
I do not want organized religion at school, period. It serves NO purpose there.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Dominionists say there is no separation of church and state and they will re-write the laws to biblicize them.

 

[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.

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

Separation of church and state was important to the Founders only in the sense that government would have no power over the Church and the Church would have no power over the government. The first would be a direct violation of unalienable rights; the second would reinstitute the miserable system in which corrupt Popes, Archbishops, or Mullah or any facsimile of these could enforce an establishment of religion which the Constitution expressly forbids.

It was never intended to prevent a prayer at a football game or a creche on a courthouse lawn or kids reading the Bible at show and tell.

All of Islam objects to this concept as do some radical Atheists and a few radical Christians and others, all of whom would prefer to see their concept of religion as the only one tolerated. The First Amendment clearly protects us from the ambitions of these radicals and the chances of the First Amendment being nullified or changed are nil EXCEPT to change wording to strengthen the concept as the courts too often get it wrong.

Amending the Constitution is a really big deal. Over the past 223 YEARS, of thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

That seems a little ironic to me, the only people who I see that like the fact that government endorses a religion are some christians, and that's because our government endorses christianity.

I certainly don't want government endorsing my view of a god(s) not existing, I don't need government backing to have my view. I've never heard any muslim say the US gov't should endorse Islam, but I do hear some christians get angry at the idea of "only" being able to put mangers up on private property, the 10 commandments on private property, etc etc.