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

[Dr.Drock]

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 an endorsement of Atheism or non-religion? (Which is expressly forbidden in the First Amendment along with any other religious beliefs.)

By government only putting up christian symbols in a time of the year with more than just a christian holiday going on? Seems pretty simple to me.

I have no problem with schools teaching the historical relevence of religion and the areas that's involved with, it happened in my high school and I'm sure it's ongoing today. I have no idea how a manger on a city building lawn does that. I don't think not having a manger on a capital lawn is the same as endorsing atheism, that seems like an enormous stretch to me.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.

Who ever said it did?

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That means the same damn thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.

Who ever said it did?

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That means the same damn thing.

No, it doesn't. All it means is that the Federal Government will not dictate, favor, or disfavor any religion or interfere with the religious faith and practice of the people.

The First Amendment is too often interpreted as "separation of church and state" and is too often interpreted to mean that there shall be no evidence of religion in anything to do with government. The Founders, even the few agnostics, would roll over in their graves if they thought there was even a remote possibility that the First Amendment would be interpreted that way. They, to a man, believed that the concept of the United States would not even survive in any hands other than a religious and virtuous people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 1st Amendment has been correctly interpreted for many decades.

Religioous denominations compete more freely and are more successful in this enivronment today.

The teachers at our high school tell the students to pray on their own when they want as long as they don't disrupt the educational process or infringe on others' to not want to be bothered about it.

 

[CryingKoala]

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.

If by Christian, you limit it strictly to Anabaptist sects such as the Society of Friends (Quakers). Probably the most rabidly secular Christian sects out there.

Every other mainstream and offshoot Christian sect has sought to entangle religion with the apparatus of government.

 

[CryingKoala]

The First Amendment is too often interpreted as "separation of church and state" and is too often interpreted to mean that there shall be no evidence of religion in anything to do with government. The Founders, even the few agnostics, would roll over in their graves if they thought there was even a remote possibility that the First Amendment would be interpreted that way. They, to a man, believed that the concept of the United States would not even survive in any hands other than a religious and virtuous people.

Actually that is complete fiction used to justify obnoxious sectarian actions adopted by government officials.

In most cases involving atheists bringing suit based on the Establishment Clause, they usually lose. The way it is really interpreted by the courts is that exclusivity and sectarian symbolism and rhetoric is what is verbotten. Inclusive, non-denomination, interfaith religious acts, speech and displays are always given the go-ahead.

The fact that people have been whining about the need for ecumenism (inclusiveness) shows how little respect they have for other faiths and how little they regard the purpose of the Establishment clause. If you can't grasp the idea that the government should not exclusively cater to the majority faith of a community, then the purpose of the First Amendment religious freedoms is lost on you.

 

[Texanmike]

The 1st Amendment has been correctly interpreted for many decades.

Religioous denominations compete more freely and are more successful in this enivronment today.

The teachers at our high school tell the students to pray on their own when they want as long as they don't disrupt the educational process or infringe on others' to not want to be bothered about it.

So the 1st Amendment wasn't correctly interpreted by the people who wrote it? What kind of stupid logic is that?

There were five states that had official state religions after the Constitution was ratified. How do you reconcile that with your assessment?

Mike

 

[CryingKoala]

The 1st Amendment has been correctly interpreted for many decades.

Religioous denominations compete more freely and are more successful in this enivronment today.

The teachers at our high school tell the students to pray on their own when they want as long as they don't disrupt the educational process or infringe on others' to not want to be bothered about it.

So the 1st Amendment wasn't correctly interpreted by the people who wrote it? What kind of stupid logic is that?

There were five states that had official state religions after the Constitution was ratified. How do you reconcile that with your assessment?

Mike

And how much of those "official state religion" laws survived in any appreciable form after that? Using examples of religious acts of government from 18th/early 19th century is a little ahistorical and not the most honest argument to make. The nation was overwhelmingly Protestant at the time and religious diversity would have meant something far different than today. My guess is you are conflating the official acceptance of Christian sects of all stripes in that period by the state to mean an official endorsement of the Christian faith in an exclusionary pattern as it would be seen today.

Plus when people play the numbers game when it comes to states and religion, they usually fail to note that the 2 states which most contributed to the Establishment Clause: RI and PA. Two states that codified the Separation of Church and State within their own colonial charters and state Constitutions.

 

[Foxfyre]

The 1st Amendment has been correctly interpreted for many decades.

Religioous denominations compete more freely and are more successful in this enivronment today.

The teachers at our high school tell the students to pray on their own when they want as long as they don't disrupt the educational process or infringe on others' to not want to be bothered about it.

So the 1st Amendment wasn't correctly interpreted by the people who wrote it? What kind of stupid logic is that?

There were five states that had official state religions after the Constitution was ratified. How do you reconcile that with your assessment?

Mike

And how much of those "official state religion" laws survived in any appreciable form after that? Using examples of religious acts of government from 18th/early 19th century is a little ahistorical and not the most honest argument to make. The nation was overwhelmingly Protestant at the time and religious diversity would have meant something far different than today. My guess is you are conflating the official acceptance of Christian sects of all stripes in that period by the state to mean an official endorsement of the Christian faith in an exclusionary pattern as it would be seen today.

Plus when people play the numbers game when it comes to states and religion, they usually fail to note that the 2 states which most contributed to the Establishment Clause: RI and PA. Two states that codified the Separation of Church and State within their own colonial charters and state Constitutions.

History isn't on your side in this argument. The Founders intended that there be no state religion at the central/federal level. They considered it absolutely no business of the federal government as to what sort of society was formed within the states including those theocracies that were pretty darn oppressive. And you are correct that by the end of the 18th century there were none, but it was not because of anything the federal government did. Remember we had a population that had never experienced a concept of self governance and it took awhile to universally catch on. Once it did, the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is infectious, contagious, and liberating and it began to be incorporated the national culture and psyche. It left no room for state sponsored religious intolerance and the people themselves threw aside their little theocracies in favor of a more gentle society.

A freedom in which unalienable rights are recognized and defended will do that.

Unfortunately, too many in our society have never been taught that concept and are all too willing to again clamor for a king to save them not realizing what it will cost them should they prevail.

 

[Texanmike]

The 1st Amendment has been correctly interpreted for many decades.

Religioous denominations compete more freely and are more successful in this enivronment today.

The teachers at our high school tell the students to pray on their own when they want as long as they don't disrupt the educational process or infringe on others' to not want to be bothered about it.

So the 1st Amendment wasn't correctly interpreted by the people who wrote it? What kind of stupid logic is that?

There were five states that had official state religions after the Constitution was ratified. How do you reconcile that with your assessment?

Mike

And how much of those "official state religion" laws survived in any appreciable form after that? Using examples of religious acts of government from 18th/early 19th century is a little ahistorical and not the most honest argument to make. The nation was overwhelmingly Protestant at the time and religious diversity would have meant something far different than today. My guess is you are conflating the official acceptance of Christian sects of all stripes in that period by the state to mean an official endorsement of the Christian faith in an exclusionary pattern as it would be seen today.

Plus when people play the numbers game when it comes to states and religion, they usually fail to note that the 2 states which most contributed to the Establishment Clause: RI and PA. Two states that codified the Separation of Church and State within their own colonial charters and state Constitutions.

But the argument is that the First Amendment was designed to erradicate all religion from all levels of government. How can you seriously argue that when they allowed 5 states to maintain official state religions?

The fact that RI and PA included the separation in their State Constituiton is only more proof that it is a state issue. There was no need to do that if the Federal government had ultimate authority on this issue. You're playing with words and guessing.

Look into Mass. and their requirement that taxes be paid towards a religion. Conn had an official religion until 1833.

I see this all the time. You want to have a separation of church and state, I don't necessarily disagree but it isn't a federal issue and history does not support your claim. How can you tell me that the first amendment was supposed to remove all links between religion and government when 5 states ratified the Amendment and maintained their official religion. This is a ridiculous notion. Somewhere around 1820 Mass. replaced thier charter with a new State constitiuon and included the separation of Church and State. That is further evidence that the separation is not a federal issue, but indeed, a state issue.

If you want to argue the advantage or disadvantage separation of church and state that is a discussion which doesn't have a clear cut answer. The issue of whether it is Constitutional or not is clear. The first amenedment was not meant to transfer this authority to the federal government. If it was they would have required the states to get rid of state religions.

I'm not confusing things, I'm not mincing words, I'm evaluating history for what it was. When it works for me, it works for me and I use it. When I find that history is not on my side, I advocate for change. As part of a larger question, I still don't understand why someone in Florida cares if the people in Georgia want a religion or not. Much like I don't understand why the people in Georgia care if Florida wants to allow two men to marry. Why do you care what people in other states want?

On this issue its probably somewhere between 40-60 and 60-40. Why would you damn 40% of the country, at least, to certain unhappiness? Why in the hell can you not leave the 40% (be they separation of church and state advocates or opponents) alone? Part of the reason this country doesn't ever seem to accomplish anything is we're having silly arguments. There are termites in the neighborhood and we're arguing over what color the wallpaper in each individual house is. No, we're trying to mandate wallpaper and carpet colors.... The ^$% $#*% left and right both need to learn to relax and let the other side have a sanctuary and a place that they can pursue their own happiness. Its like watching kids argue. "I want church in government, well I want abortion, I want drugs..." "Ok guys, you can each have it in your own state"... "NO! I demand that we set a national policy according to my standards.

FFS. Get a life guys.

Mike

 

[CryingKoala]

But the argument is that the First Amendment was designed to erradicate all religion from all levels of government. How can you seriously argue that when they allowed 5 states to maintain official state religions?

Mike

Which I already have said on numerous times is a false argument to make. The true intention is to avoid giving the appearance of sectarian interests and exclusion. It keeps getting ignored because it doesn't jive with most canned arguments people have been making here.

You are making a strawman argument and using support from something which I think you have misinterpreted or was applying an ahistorical view of.

The fact that RI and PA included the separation in their State Constituiton is only more proof that it is a state issue. There was no need to do that if the Federal government had ultimate authority on this issue. You're playing with words and guessing.

Not so fast. They were the chief proponents of the Establishment Clause as well. It was their efforts which got it in the Constitution in the first place. Nobody else cared enough to make a point of opposing it.

You just want to avoid the pesky implication of what is plainly in the text of the 1st Amendment. Plus you can't make a State's rights/responsibility argument about personal liberties anymore. The 14th Amendment kills those once and for all.

If you want to argue the advantage or disadvantage separation of church and state that is a discussion which doesn't have a clear cut answer. The issue of whether it is Constitutional or not is clear.

Not really. It has been pretty well discussed and hashed out. Its just some people find it inconvenient for their aims and others don't bother to find out for themselves.

I still don't understand why someone in Florida cares if the people in Georgia want a religion or not. Much like I don't understand why the people in Georgia care if Florida wants to allow two men to marry. Why do you care what people in other states want?

Because personal liberties are a national issue. It doesn't work to defer it to the states. We had a Civil War over that sort of thing. Simply put, States are not trusted to be the final arbitor of what constitutes personal liberties and equal protection under the law. They had their chance for the first century of our nation and already messed it up for the rest of us.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Sorry pal, but you cannot codify your bible into the law of the land. If you want to pray, then go for it. No one is stopping you. I don't know why you have to be in your face about it.

As a side note, this is why Texans took Thomas Jefferson out of the history books. I don't know why Republicans despise Jefferson so much, but they do.

Nobody wants to codify any bible freakazoid. What are you a vampire or something? The mere mention of a bible sends you into a fit.

I mean I'm not a Christian. More Pagan than anything else. You need to settle down, you come off like a crazy person.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

If by Christian, you limit it strictly to Anabaptist sects such as the Society of Friends (Quakers). Probably the most rabidly secular Christian sects out there.

Every other mainstream and offshoot Christian sect has sought to entangle religion with the apparatus of government.

How and when? Specifics, please. I would like to see legislation that has been introduced with that objective.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts reject the simplistic defense that "the founders" wanted this or that. What counts is how the courts, the legislatures, We the Peoples have dealt with the issue from the late 18th century to the early 21st century. Religious observances in tax-supported environments federally and state levels generally remains prohibited. Exceptions exist: chaplains in the service and the Congress, prayers at certain government functions, etc. State-supported and -directed religious activities in public education environments remain prohibited.

The application of the law above does not prohibit individual or group activities on state-supported public ed campuses as long as generally they (1) do not disrupt the educational process, or (2) do not infringe on others who wish to not be bothered or subjected to such activities.

These questions are properly addressed in federal court, with SCOTUS making the final decision.

 

[CryingKoala]

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

If by Christian, you limit it strictly to Anabaptist sects such as the Society of Friends (Quakers). Probably the most rabidly secular Christian sects out there.

Every other mainstream and offshoot Christian sect has sought to entangle religion with the apparatus of government.

How and when? Specifics, please. I would like to see legislation that has been introduced with that objective.

Playing ignorant at this stage of the game is silly.

We would not be having this discussion if we didn't have a significant portion of people who want religious dogma entangled with the apparatus of government. One does not attack separation of church and state otherwise.

Still, that being said, separation of church and state is not an atheist or anti-religious concept. Its roots are religious in nature, coming from a group of well connected minority sect members who sought remedies against persecution which did not include becoming persecutors themselves.

 

[CryingKoala]

The facts reject the simplistic defense that "the founders" wanted this or that. What counts is how the courts, the legislatures, We the Peoples have dealt with the issue from the late 18th century to the early 21st century. Religious observances in tax-supported environments federally and state levels generally remains prohibited. Exceptions exist: chaplains in the service and the Congress, prayers at certain government functions, etc. State-supported and -directed religious activities in public education environments remain prohibited.

The application of the law above does not prohibit individual or group activities on state-supported public ed campuses as long as generally they (1) do not disrupt the educational process, or (2) do not infringe on others who wish to not be bothered or subjected to such activities.

These questions are properly addressed in federal court, with SCOTUS making the final decision.

Just to add, even among those exceptions of state supported/directed religious activities, there was a conscious effort to avoid sectarian interest.

Such efforts had to be done with the effort of being inclusive, non-denominational, all-encompassing efforts. Efforts which deliberately gave the impression of exclusion are shot down by the courts.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

If by Christian, you limit it strictly to Anabaptist sects such as the Society of Friends (Quakers). Probably the most rabidly secular Christian sects out there.

Every other mainstream and offshoot Christian sect has sought to entangle religion with the apparatus of government.

How and when? Specifics, please. I would like to see legislation that has been introduced with that objective.

That's the thing isn't it?

The Founders held church services in the chambers of Congress on their conviction that as long as attendance was purely voluntary, there was no Constitutional problem with that. They and many of their successors for the next hundred years offered prayers and incorporated their religious convictions into their writings and speeches and made no effort to use politically correct generic language when they did so.

School children started their day with a prayer and prayers at all assemblies and large gatherings were commonplace. Bands and choirs were able to experience and perform the music of the great masters: Bach, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Handel et al. Art teachers lectured on the magniicent religious paintings arising out of the medieval period into the Rennaisance.

One of the highlights of the year for both students and parents at my highschool was a performance of the Messiah in the Christmas concert. People of all denominations and faiths and certainly a few agnostics and Atheists came from miles around to hear it. Framed copies of the Ten Commandments were routinely hung in classrooms, and it was commonplace for a kid to bring a model or artwork or something from Sunday School for show and tell.

Because the communities were predominantly Christian, probably more Christian influence than anything else was prevalent, but if there was a Jewish population or Native American or other, the teachers would always incorporate some of their traditional music into the mix too.

Except for a couple, I can't tell you what religion or religious denomination any of my teachers belonged to or their political affiliations for that matter. None were teaching religion. The were teachng art, literature, culture, history that cannot be taught competently without including the historical religious influence in it. But nobody was afraid to round out a complete education including ALL art, literature, and culture.

And in spite of all that, no theocracy developed. No law or amendment challenging the First Amendment was offered or considered. We remain a religious, mostly Christian, nation with a secular government that, when the Constitution is not corruptly interpreted, allows each community to do their thing as they want provided nobody's unalienable rights are infringed.

 

[Texanmike]

Because personal liberties are a national issue. It doesn't work to defer it to the states. We had a Civil War over that sort of thing. Simply put, States are not trusted to be the final arbitor of what constitutes personal liberties and equal protection under the law. They had their chance for the first century of our nation and already messed it up for the rest of us.

This is kind of a splinter argument and I'll just address it separately, I'm going back to read the history of our argument with regards to separation of church and state so I more clearly understand what you're saying. But I think that this is honestly the core of our disagreement right here. Please don't mistake my tone for being rude or disrespectful, I'm just being frank.

Personal liberties are not a national issue. If personal liberties are a national issue, they should be a world issue. We shouldn't stop at the argument of states, we should be forcing our version of freedom on every country in every corner of the world. (I don't agree with most 'conservative' views on foreign policy by the way). The civil war is an entirely different debate, and one of the most difficult to tackle because of the specialization and the ability of people to pick and choose facts and examples. I would argue that while it was over personal liberties, you cannot say that the states failed to manage them. In fact, it was the federal government that was beginning to attempt to manage them when the war broke out. There was a social change and rather than let it happen in its natural course the federal government stepped in and took the debate to a national level. We have seen the results.

The Civil War was as much about economics as anything if you get down to it. Personal liberties made good press and incited emotions but at the end of the day neither side cared about it. Oddly enough, slavery was on its way out one way or another, even in the deep south. It might have taken longer to occur officially but you likely wouldn't have seen the social and economic chains that were put on minorities had it been allowed to take its natural course.

As for personal liberties being a national issue, if that's the case then what isn't a national issue. I've said before that if your position is that "issue A" is a national issue then they must all be national issues. If they are national issues then why have states? You pick the top 5 issues of national importance to you and I pick 5 and you get that list from 100 people and you will probably have at least 500-1000 issues that are "national" in nature.

Furthermore, the FF left us a way to deal with national issues, the amendment process. If separation of church and state (or anything for that matter) is a national issue then write an amendment and ratify it. If it is a 50/50 issue or even a 60/40 issue then it isn't a national issue. If you can't get 75% of the states to agree that it is a national issue then its not truly a national issue. The 14th Amendment, as originally intended, clearly was not meant to apply the bill of rights to the states, it was meant to apply all laws within a state to the States. That much is clear for the first 40 years after the Amendment was ratified. If the 14th amendment was meant to incorporate the Bill of rights or apply all rights "nationally" then it wouldn't have taken almost 50 years for the courts to find that way. Incorporation doctrine itself is an example of virtual legislation from the bench of the supreme court and its time that we put an end that that on both sides. Instead, write the amendment and get it ratified.

I'm sure this will be an interesting debate.

Ironically, the first hint of an argument of the incorporation doctrine involved a state Constitution. I just find that kind of funny. Instead of the courts being able to evolve the words of the Amendments (and the Constitution) we should write new amendments, that would solve all of this because you and I clearly advocate different legal issues. I think that stare decisis is a terrible thing and a way for the judicial branch to mold society in whatever way they want. If I write a contract (or an Amendment) then it should mean the same thing today as it will mean in 50 years, any time (and this goes for some doctrines that I agree with in principle) you change the meaning of a contract to "fit the changing of the times" you risk credibility.

Mike

 

[Sky Dancer]

Dominionists agree separation of church and state is a liberal myth. Vote for Bachmann and Perry.

 

[Texanmike]

The facts reject the simplistic defense that "the founders" wanted this or that. What counts is how the courts, the legislatures, We the Peoples have dealt with the issue from the late 18th century to the early 21st century. Religious observances in tax-supported environments federally and state levels generally remains prohibited. Exceptions exist: chaplains in the service and the Congress, prayers at certain government functions, etc. State-supported and -directed religious activities in public education environments remain prohibited.

The application of the law above does not prohibit individual or group activities on state-supported public ed campuses as long as generally they (1) do not disrupt the educational process, or (2) do not infringe on others who wish to not be bothered or subjected to such activities.

These questions are properly addressed in federal court, with SCOTUS making the final decision.

It is such a universal decision that you could get an amendment passed right? No. You have the ability to twist ans mince words to fit your desires. What does law mean/how does it matter if it is malleable? You don't like history because it doesn't support your views on a particular topic. I will ask you. Why is this even a national issue?

Mike