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

[Cecilie1200]

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

Incorrect.

It is found here:

The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped.

Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Needless to say the radical right, TPM, and libertarians will reject this ruling as they reject the principle of judicial review and the rule of law comprehensively. I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it. That they should reject it because they don’t agree with the ruling is without merit, and meaningless, subjective opinion.

Regardless, per Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means, and per the Court separation of church and State is in the Constitution.

Consequently, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al, are indeed wrong in their belief that church and State should be conjoined, that American law should be based on the bible, and that prohibitions accordingly are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

I LOVE how you told us it was incorrect that "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution, say, "It's found here", and then CITE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION.

Liberalism really IS a mental disorder . . . or possibly a form of brain damage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Especially since when you're interpreting the word "arms", you're at least talking about something that actually APPEARS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

The Heller ruling addressed the issue of an individual right verses a collective right and the right of self defense. The words ‘individual’ and ‘self defense’ are not in the Second Amendment, yet the Court ruled that one has an individual right to own a handgun in the context of the Constitutional right to self defense. Consequently the right of the individual to own a handgun in self defense is in the Constitution, as with separation of church and State. That the actual words aren’t in the Constitution is irrelevant. The Court interpreted the Second Amendment accordingly, just as it did with the First Amendment.

Or…

If you reject the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State you must also reject the Constitutional doctrine of the individual right to own a handgun in self defense.

One can’t have it both ways.

 

[koshergrl]

There is no constititutional doctrine of separation of church and state.

 

[Intense]

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

It's the Koran that does not distinguish between Church and State. Separation of Church is a Christian Teaching.

 

[Intense]

Most christians I've dealt with don't care about not being able to put up a manger at city hall in christmas time because they're everyone on church lawns and anywhere else citizens want to put them. There's just a small minority who complain about it, just like there's a small minority of agnostics/atheists who complain about silly things in terms of religion and government.

The purpose of various rights is not to protect the majority. They exercise their rights every time they vote. Its to protect those "silly little minorities" who may complain.

Frankly if you are going to put up the manger on public property, you should also put up other religious symbols which represent the faiths of the community as well. The point of separation of church and state is to avoid the appearance or actuality of exclusion by the government based on religious faith.

It sends the wrong message when the religious symbols adopted by a government agency only reflect one religion in a community. Inclusiveness is democratic, sectarianism is not.

There is no more important Minority than the Individual.

 

[Intense]

OK. This is a little larger than the thread but its a question I suggest you think about before furthering your political ideology.

Who defines what oppression is? The oppressor or the oppressed?

Can you really tell me that someone's not religiously oppressed because you say they aren't?

That is the reason for local government. Seriously, go read the Freeman's Pennsylvania Packet contributions. Tell me how well that's worked out for us.

Mike

I really hope you aren't playing the "I'm a christian being oppressed by a government full of christians in majority christian country" card, or even further that I'm involved in you guys being oppressed.

Come on man. Read what I said and think about what I asked instead of reacting to the first four words.

Can you tell a person they are not being oppressed?

The answer is no. THAT is the reason for local government.

Mike

The Design of the Constitution was to Limit the Power and Influence of the Federal Government over the People and the States. That was not good enough for those in the Totalitarian Statist with his obsession with Centralized Control. The Religion of the Statist is Government.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Hi. I'm Mike. I was making an argument that had nothing to do with a specific religion. Oh, you'd like to overlook that argument and say its based on my Christianity? Conveniently ignore the very reasons I gave you for my feeling because they don't fit your little profile.


Mike

I specifically said some christians, certainly not all, so no I don't have a little profile for people of a certain religion.

Most christians I've dealt with don't care about not being able to put up a manger at city hall in christmas time because they're everywhere on church lawns and anywhere else citizens want to put them. There's just a small minority who complain about it, just like there's a small minority of agnostics/atheists who complain about silly things in terms of religion and government.

It isn't that it is IMPORTANT to put up the traditional community creche at City Hall or on the Courthouse lawn at Christmas. It is important that the community have the right to do so if that is what the community wants to do. It is the people's government, not the government's government. In too many places, lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits have forced communities to discontinue that practice that they did for decades.

The same rights that allow the Creche, however, must also allow a tasteful Mennorah if the local Jewish community wants one or any other traditional symbol if the local people want that. And it should be the local people funding the project and providing the labor, not the government\ which has always been the case in every town I've lived in in which this has been an issue.

The Founders through the Constitution or anywhere else NEVER expected the Constitution to be used to attack or thwart religious expression in any way. It was intended to protect the people's right to express religion any way they wanted short of violating somebody else's rights. Nobody's rights are violated in any way by the presence of a traditional Creche on the courthouse lawn so long as nobody HAS to participate in or contribute to that.

It is important to understand how the Constitution protects both government and religion, and not distort that into a distortion of it, i.e. separation of Church and State means there shall be no presence of religious symbols, imagery, presence, music, etc.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Incorrect.

It is found here:

The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped.

Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Needless to say the radical right, TPM, and libertarians will reject this ruling as they reject the principle of judicial review and the rule of law comprehensively. I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it. That they should reject it because they don’t agree with the ruling is without merit, and meaningless, subjective opinion.

Regardless, per Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means, and per the Court separation of church and State is in the Constitution.

Consequently, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al, are indeed wrong in their belief that church and State should be conjoined, that American law should be based on the bible, and that prohibitions accordingly are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

I LOVE how you told us it was incorrect that "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution, say, "It's found here", and then CITE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION.

Liberalism really IS a mental disorder . . . or possibly a form of brain damage.

Cecelie1200's opinion on this subject is worthless. Yes, a separation of church and state exists, that is not in question, only the degree of it is argued.

 

[pinqy]

It is important that the community have the right to do so if that is what the community wants to do.

Why? What is the governmental interest in religious displays? What governmental function is served?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is important that the community have the right to do so if that is what the community wants to do.

Why? What is the governmental interest in religious displays? What governmental function is served?

The government is people. The people charged to carry out the necessary functions of government should carry out the necessary functions of government. But the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people and guided by the restraints of the Constitution should otherwise do what the people want.

So if the people want a creche on THEIR courthouse lawn--a courthouse THEY built and paid for and maintain--and provided they build, fund, maintain, and clean up afterwards themselves--they should have that. All it takes is a simple up or down vote by the governing authority to allow tasteful traditional or historical displays in a given area on government property. The only hard and fast rule is that displays must not insult or denigrate any citizens, must be allowed to all groups, and must be funded by those who put up the display so that those who don't want to participate are not required to do so with their tax dollars.

So why would you object to such a policy in any community?

 

[koshergrl]

Incorrect.

It is found here:



Needless to say the radical right, TPM, and libertarians will reject this ruling as they reject the principle of judicial review and the rule of law comprehensively. I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it. That they should reject it because they don’t agree with the ruling is without merit, and meaningless, subjective opinion.

Regardless, per Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means, and per the Court separation of church and State is in the Constitution.

Consequently, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al, are indeed wrong in their belief that church and State should be conjoined, that American law should be based on the bible, and that prohibitions accordingly are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

I LOVE how you told us it was incorrect that "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution, say, "It's found here", and then CITE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION.

Liberalism really IS a mental disorder . . . or possibly a form of brain damage.

Cecelie1200's opinion on this subject is worthless. Yes, a separation of church and state exists, that is not in question, only the degree of it is argued.

Your opinion is worthless, and irrelevant. Nobody said separation of church and state did, or didn't, exist. So you're right, it's not in question, nobody said it was.

It is NOT, however, in our Constitution. So "interpreting" it as a matter of constitutional interpretation is ignorant. You can't "interpret" something that isn't there. There is no "interpreting" of the separation of church and state in the Constitution, and people who claim there is are trying to slide something in there that doesn't exist.

 

[koshergrl]

It is important that the community have the right to do so if that is what the community wants to do.

Why? What is the governmental interest in religious displays? What governmental function is served?

So you are saying people live to serve the government?

Lol..now that is in direct conflict with everything the Constitution stands for and everything this country is.

Government serves people, not the other way around. Government protects the rights of PEOPLE. We don't exist to serve government.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It is important that the community have the right to do so if that is what the community wants to do.

Why? What is the governmental interest in religious displays? What governmental function is served?

The government is people. The people charged to carry out the necessary functions of government should carry out the necessary functions of government. But the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people and guided by the restraints of the Constitution should otherwise do what the people want.

So if the people want a creche on THEIR courthouse lawn--a courthouse THEY built and paid for and maintain--and provided they build, fund, maintain, and clean up afterwards themselves--they should have that. All it takes is a simple up or down vote by the governing authority to allow tasteful traditional or historical displays in a given area on government property. The only hard and fast rule is that displays must not insult or denigrate any citizens, must be allowed to all groups, and must be funded by those who put up the display so that those who don't want to participate are not required to do so with their tax dollars.

So why would you object to such a policy in any community?

And again we get into the conversation of protecting minorities, we have a history of not doing that in this country up until recently so I'd like to not go back to the way it was.

Even if they aren't the majority, jews and muslims and people of all religions shouldn't have their views downplayed by gov't by having them prop up the majority religion (even though it already happens now, sadly).

 

[Foxfyre]

Why? What is the governmental interest in religious displays? What governmental function is served?

The government is people. The people charged to carry out the necessary functions of government should carry out the necessary functions of government. But the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people and guided by the restraints of the Constitution should otherwise do what the people want.

So if the people want a creche on THEIR courthouse lawn--a courthouse THEY built and paid for and maintain--and provided they build, fund, maintain, and clean up afterwards themselves--they should have that. All it takes is a simple up or down vote by the governing authority to allow tasteful traditional or historical displays in a given area on government property. The only hard and fast rule is that displays must not insult or denigrate any citizens, must be allowed to all groups, and must be funded by those who put up the display so that those who don't want to participate are not required to do so with their tax dollars.

So why would you object to such a policy in any community?

And again we get into the conversation of protecting minorities, we have a history of not doing that in this country up until recently so I'd like to not go back to the way it was.

Even if they aren't the majority, jews and muslims and people of all religions shouldn't have their views downplayed by gov't by having them prop up the majority religion (even though it already happens now, sadly).

Protect minorities from what? From seeing a beautiful old creche on the courthouse lawn? From seeing a tasteful Mennorah marking Hannukah? From seeing a tribute to Martin Luther King on his birthday? From seeing a patriotic display on the Fourth of July?

If you aren't required to participate in or fund that in any way, what right of yours is infringed in any way because your neighbors enjoy commemorating special holidays or events? How is denying them the ability to do that not infringing on their liberty or pursuit of happiness?

 

[Dr.Drock]

The government is people. The people charged to carry out the necessary functions of government should carry out the necessary functions of government. But the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people and guided by the restraints of the Constitution should otherwise do what the people want.

So if the people want a creche on THEIR courthouse lawn--a courthouse THEY built and paid for and maintain--and provided they build, fund, maintain, and clean up afterwards themselves--they should have that. All it takes is a simple up or down vote by the governing authority to allow tasteful traditional or historical displays in a given area on government property. The only hard and fast rule is that displays must not insult or denigrate any citizens, must be allowed to all groups, and must be funded by those who put up the display so that those who don't want to participate are not required to do so with their tax dollars.

So why would you object to such a policy in any community?

And again we get into the conversation of protecting minorities, we have a history of not doing that in this country up until recently so I'd like to not go back to the way it was.

Even if they aren't the majority, jews and muslims and people of all religions shouldn't have their views downplayed by gov't by having them prop up the majority religion (even though it already happens now, sadly).

Protect minorities from what? From seeing a beautiful old creche on the courthouse lawn? From seeing a tasteful Mennorah marking Hannukah? From seeing a tribute to Martin Luther King on his birthday? From seeing a patriotic display on the Fourth of July?

If you aren't required to participate in or fund that in any way, what right of yours is infringed in any way because your neighbors enjoy commemorating special holidays or events? How is denying them the ability to do that not infringing on their liberty or pursuit of happiness?

It's not their right at all to infringe on their neighbors religious commemorations, but it is their right to not have government infringe on their religious commemorations, hence separation of church and state.

 

[Foxfyre]

And again we get into the conversation of protecting minorities, we have a history of not doing that in this country up until recently so I'd like to not go back to the way it was.

Even if they aren't the majority, jews and muslims and people of all religions shouldn't have their views downplayed by gov't by having them prop up the majority religion (even though it already happens now, sadly).

Protect minorities from what? From seeing a beautiful old creche on the courthouse lawn? From seeing a tasteful Mennorah marking Hannukah? From seeing a tribute to Martin Luther King on his birthday? From seeing a patriotic display on the Fourth of July?

If you aren't required to participate in or fund that in any way, what right of yours is infringed in any way because your neighbors enjoy commemorating special holidays or events? How is denying them the ability to do that not infringing on their liberty or pursuit of happiness?

It's not their right at all to infringe on their neighbors religious commemorations, but it is their right to not have government infringe on their religious commemorations, hence separation of church and state.

So long as the government isn't putting up the display, how is the government infringing on anybody's religious commemorations?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Protect minorities from what? From seeing a beautiful old creche on the courthouse lawn? From seeing a tasteful Mennorah marking Hannukah? From seeing a tribute to Martin Luther King on his birthday? From seeing a patriotic display on the Fourth of July?

If you aren't required to participate in or fund that in any way, what right of yours is infringed in any way because your neighbors enjoy commemorating special holidays or events? How is denying them the ability to do that not infringing on their liberty or pursuit of happiness?

It's not their right at all to infringe on their neighbors religious commemorations, but it is their right to not have government infringe on their religious commemorations, hence separation of church and state.

So long as the government isn't putting up the display, how is the government infringing on anybody's religious commemorations?

By saying one religion is worthy of their endorsement and the religions of the minority groups aren't worthy of such.

I'm quite confident you wouldn't be ok with your capitol building having Quran verses all over it, the reason why you don't like separation of church and state is for some reason it's important to you that our government promotes (even more than it does already) christianity. You'd be demanding separation of church and state in that instance of Quran quotes being posted.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not their right at all to infringe on their neighbors religious commemorations, but it is their right to not have government infringe on their religious commemorations, hence separation of church and state.

So long as the government isn't putting up the display, how is the government infringing on anybody's religious commemorations?

By saying one religion is worthy of their endorsement and the religions of the minority groups aren't worthy of such.

I'm quite confident you wouldn't be ok with your capitol building having Quran verses all over it, the reason why you don't like separation of church and state is for some reason it's important to you that our government promotes (even more than it does already) christianity. You'd be demanding separation of church and state in that instance of Quran quotes being posted.

I would have no objection to a Qu'ran verse or two that had historical significance for the area or building any more than I object to Jewish scripture of historical significance being incorporated or Christian scripture of historical significance or Buddhist sayings of historical significance or whatever. Whatever symbolism or imagery is used, however, is appropriate when it reflects the historical culture and contributions in a particular area.

But please don't change the subject here. The issue of a creche on the courthouse lawn is not one of a permanent fixture but a symbol the community has traditionally enjoyed to celebrate a nationally recognized Christian holiday. Whether or not you are Christian, so long as you are not required to contribute to it or participate in it, how does its presence violate your rights in any way?

 

[Dr.Drock]

So long as the government isn't putting up the display, how is the government infringing on anybody's religious commemorations?

By saying one religion is worthy of their endorsement and the religions of the minority groups aren't worthy of such.

I'm quite confident you wouldn't be ok with your capitol building having Quran verses all over it, the reason why you don't like separation of church and state is for some reason it's important to you that our government promotes (even more than it does already) christianity. You'd be demanding separation of church and state in that instance of Quran quotes being posted.

I would have no objection to a Qu'ran verse or two that had historical significance for the area or building any more than I object to Jewish scripture of historical significance being incorporated or Christian scripture of historical significance or Buddhist sayings of historical significance or whatever. Whatever symbolism or imagery is used, however, is appropriate when it reflects the historical culture and contributions in a particular area.

But please don't change the subject here. The issue of a creche on the courthouse lawn is not one of a permanent fixture but a symbol the community has traditionally enjoyed to celebrate a nationally recognized Christian holiday. Whether or not you are Christian, so long as you are not required to contribute to it or participate in it, how does its presence violate your rights in any way?

I personally wouldn't care all that much, as I just look passed that stuff around the holidays. Most holiday decorations I see have nothing to do with religion (lights, trees, santa, rudolph presents, etc).

But I could certainly see how people would view that as government establishing christianity as their religion.

 

[Foxfyre]

By saying one religion is worthy of their endorsement and the religions of the minority groups aren't worthy of such.

I'm quite confident you wouldn't be ok with your capitol building having Quran verses all over it, the reason why you don't like separation of church and state is for some reason it's important to you that our government promotes (even more than it does already) christianity. You'd be demanding separation of church and state in that instance of Quran quotes being posted.

I would have no objection to a Qu'ran verse or two that had historical significance for the area or building any more than I object to Jewish scripture of historical significance being incorporated or Christian scripture of historical significance or Buddhist sayings of historical significance or whatever. Whatever symbolism or imagery is used, however, is appropriate when it reflects the historical culture and contributions in a particular area.

But please don't change the subject here. The issue of a creche on the courthouse lawn is not one of a permanent fixture but a symbol the community has traditionally enjoyed to celebrate a nationally recognized Christian holiday. Whether or not you are Christian, so long as you are not required to contribute to it or participate in it, how does its presence violate your rights in any way?

I personally wouldn't care all that much, as I just look passed that stuff around the holidays. Most holiday decorations I see have nothing to do with religion (lights, trees, santa, rudolph presents, etc).

But I could certainly see how people would view that as government establishing christianity as their religion.

And how would it do that? Are you required to genuflect when you go by the display? Are you required to bow down in reverence? Are you required to attend church or recite any scripture or believe in God or give an offering or required to do ANYTHING because your neighbors are commemorating a special religious holiday that is meaningful for them?

If the government doesn't put it up or happens to allow historical symbolic Christian or Jewish or whatever art or decorations for anything, how is that in any way an establishment of religion? How is erasing the profound role religion has had in the tenets and history of our government, culture, development, and living out our lives as Americans NOT a promotion/establishment of Atheism or non-religion? (Which is expressly forbidden in the First Amendment along with any other religious beliefs.)