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

[Texanmike]

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.

I do reject the unconstitutional doctrine of ceparation of church and state. I also reject the unconstitutional doctrine of the individual right to own a hand gun for self defense.

You have a right to own a handgun.

The Heller case was the correct ruling but the opinion and the methodology used to get to the decision was absolutely incorrect. I believe it was done in that way with the intent of establishing another "doctrine" that we will look back on and regret at some point in the future.

Here is the short version of my case: (If you really want, I will go look up the post that I made, if its archived, about this very issue after the opinions were released. I am an active member of another, more private board and I don't know if they have a 2 year history.)

The Heller case should have only been decided considering the 2nd Amendment. The first amendment is constructed in an entirely different manner from the second amendment and the 14th amendment is similar in construct but it should not have been applied in this case. The question is not "Does a person have the right to bear arms for self defense" it is does a person have the right to bear arms. The Second amendment didn't leave out any words, there are no implied meanings if you read it as it was intended at the time.

The states got together and agreed that the the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no need for the 14th Amendment in the argument. There is no need for anything in the argument, it is simple, it shall not be infringed... period.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

That was in the 60s when I was in school Mike. Why leave now when the law stops the religous kooks from wanting their mob majority rule? I have lived here all of my life.
Anyone that has crossed the lines and played as many games as I have knows damn well that there are many players and families at the games that DO NOT want an organized Christian prayer at any game.
And we don't and that is a good thing NOW. It wasn't that way when I played.

Why does everyone have such a hard time grasping this concept. There are hundreds of examples where I agree with the federal government's policy. I am anti-drug use, I'm anti-same sex marriage, I don't think that prayer has a place in public school etc etc etc. The point isn't this one issue.

The point is the nationalization of policy. It is evil, it is putrid and it will eventually bring us to our knees. I'm not worried about the federal government making a policy that I agree with. I'm worried that it will start to make policies that I disagree with. Then what? What do I do when the other side is in power? I can't say "well, you can't make a law nationally, you don't have that authority" because I would have advocated for that very same authority when my guy was in charge. All of these social issues, all of these "individual freedom" issues deal with a set of rules that make up a community and a lifestyle.

What happens when the pendulum swings in the other direction? What happens if the "moral" majority takes hold again? If the federal government decides that it is ok to have prayer at every game are you suddenly going to throw your hands up and say "oh well?". This isn't about the issue of separation of church and state, it is about limitations on a government which is seizing the chance to grab authority in every aspect of your life.


Look, there are people out there who believe that they know what's best for you. They view your salvation as more important than what you want. (Vicariously baptizing every person in the world, for one example right off the top of my head). They do not understand your "irrational" fear of prayer. They consider themselves both morally and intellectually superior to you and you cannot possibly know what is best for you. They would sieze control of the federal government and then they can use the very same authority that you are arguing now. What do you do then? Before you say "well that's not going to happen", back in the 50's nobody thought that society would make the shift that its making today. Now if you have lifted this debate to a national level, once it goes there, unless you return the power and the debate to the local and state level... you are without recourse. You have no sanctuary. The perfect example is the prohibition of alcohol. There are counties and parishes that are dry. Zero alcohol can be bought or sold in those communities. They don't have the authority however to ban alcohol sale nationally. Thank GOD we got that right in our Amendment process.

Pick a side on any of these social debates. I don't care which side, and advocate for it. Tell people that caring if adam can marry steve it doesn't change their lives. Tell them that prayer is a private thing. Or tell adam that he can't marry steve. Bot arguments have irrational conclusions, just like this one. Having this debate at a national level is dangerous and we've been playing with fire for the last 50 years. It should have always been a state issue, at the largest.

Mike

I have no "irratitional fear of prayer".
Why make crap up?

Wait, out of what I said... the only thing you respond to is that? LMAO. The funny thing is your statement is my point. YOU don't see your views as fearful or irrational so you wish to apply your view on a national level. There is someone who's views you see as irrational who has the polar opposite of your view, and views you as irrational. If you extend this to a national debate (while you are winning) when the tide turns, on this particular issue or another, you will have no where to go. It will be decided everywhere.

I'm not making anything up. I'm illustrating that you believe it is irrational for someone to want a manditory prayer. There are people who believe that your desire to have prayer excluded from the public square, or whatever your view is, is irrational. Simply saying "their belief is irrational, therefore my view is rational" isn't sufficient. The FF knew this and this is the reason that they allowed the states to grant the federal government the authority to legislate new issues. Before the federal government can legislate new issues though, they required that 3/4 the states grant that authority to the federal government. It has not been done in this case. In fact, it was taken away from the government.

The debates since I got here have actually prompted me to go back through the Constitution and the Amendments and do even more studying about how they were constructed and to verify my beliefs or cast them aside if my views are unsupported. I'm going to be posting a thread in a few hours (or days?) and just kind of update it with what I find and why I find it to be so. Maybe nobody will even read it but I'll be able to reference it there since most of my views on issues all center around the importance of the Constitution and what it means. I better make sure I'm right.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

One can only dream of the meltdown that would ensue if someone asked at a public school graduation for everyone to bow their heads and pray to Allah and then a mainstream Quran prayer was said.

Or if a teacher said out loud Allah instead of God in the pledge of allegiance.

Or if Quran lines were all over a public building.

Or if ceremonial muslim pieces were put up on a capital building during big holidays in islam.

All the people in here who think it's a great idea to have government involvement in these things towards christianity would be FREAKING out.

That's because people can't mind their own business. Perhaps if we started shrinking the debates from national levels to state and local levels... people wouldn't be so threatened by alternative lifestyles from their own.

Mike

 

[peach174]

Like it or not we are a Christan Nation.
When 76% of the people in this nation are Christians it makes it a Christan Nation.
The percentage was even higher when we became a nation in 1776.
Our founders intended for God to be included in our Government. But that it should be non- denominational so that all religions would be included.
That is what they do at prayer every morning for the House, Senate and Supreme court. The prayers are always non-denominational,but led by Christians as well as other's.
Just like Muslim nations. When Muslims make up the majority of the nation it is a Muslim Nation.
It is atheists who have tried to get God out of our government ever since the 1960's
Separation of Church and State means that our Government can not endorse a certain type of religion.
It was never, that God should be out of our Government.

 

[CryingKoala]

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

You seem to be working under the assumption the 14th Amendment doesn't exist here. Equal Protection under the Law in its plain textual reading and interpretation means exactly the opposite of what you are saying. States cannot pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights protections under the aegis of Federal/State division of duties. Any issue of personal liberties becomes a federal issue under this. Liberties must be upheld in a uniform and equal manner for all citizens irregardless of where they are living within the nation.

As for your take on the judicial branch, that is another argument already lost for more than a century when the power of judicial review was accepted under Marbury v. Madison. Actually you lost that argument in the colonization period of the US. Our legal system is a direct copy of the British Common Law system. In fact in the early days of SCOTUS, British legal indexes were used primarily for the purposes of citing to case law. Stare decisis is the legacy of the British system. The British set their system up so judges can interpret the law without requiring legislative guidance. If you want the legislatures to be the sole guide for legal interpretation, we would have had to be colonized by the French.

Unlike the legislature, the Judicial branch is charged with the duty of having to interpret the Constitution in light of a real life conflict which requires resolution. Stare decisis is more useful in this situation because a law has to be able to be implemented in real world situations beyond any kind of theoretical situation which Congress can only work with. Congress doesn't have to consider potential conflicts which can arise when it passes a law, they don't see how the law actually interacts within the society. The Courts have no choice. They have to interpret it in order to deal with the parties brought before them.

Yes it took 50 years after the 14th Amendment was passed before it was applied towards personal liberties. It has more to do with the political attitudes of SCOTUS itself during the 19th Century than anything else. It does not change the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause nor act in any way to invalidate its given interpretation.

As for the separation of church and state. The argument against it relies mostly on cherrypicking details, omitting contrary facts and failing to frame examples used in prior centuries in the context of the national culture back then.

It predates the Constitution as a concept and was the guiding principle behind the Establishment Clause. It was not created by Jefferson or SCOTUS, but by William Penn and Roger Williams more than a century before the Revolution. The Establishment Clause does not mean that all religious references are banned from government expression. It means such things have to be inclusive in nature and not sectarian. What was considered inclusive back in the 18th Century won't fly today under any circumstances (or as some would say, even back then
Founding Father John Adams? Advice to Rick Perry: Don?t Meddle in Religion | Politics | Religion Dispatches)

 

[CryingKoala]

Like it or not we are a Christan Nation.
When 76% of the people in this nation are Christians it makes it a Christan Nation.
The percentage was even higher when we became a nation in 1776.
Our founders intended for God to be included in our Government. But that it should be non- denominational so that all religions would be included.
That is what they do at prayer every morning for the House, Senate and Supreme court. The prayers are always non-denominational,but led by Christians as well as other's.
Just like Muslim nations. When Muslims make up the majority of the nation it is a Muslim Nation.
It is atheists who have tried to get God out of our government ever since the 1960's
Separation of Church and State means that our Government can not endorse a certain type of religion.
It was never, that God should be out of our Government.

Bullshit.

When people talk about the US being "a Christian Nation", they are really saying that Christians should be put in a privileged position over all other faiths in this country.

They may say, it really means just that "Christians are a majority" but its a lie. The phrase is meant to be taken as something else entirely. That's just what they say in polite company.

Usually the conversation also goes to "The US is founded on Judeo-Christian principles" but its also bullshit since none of them can find any reference within the religious texts of those two faiths which apply beyond what is common to virtually all religions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are a secular republic with a majority of Christians.

We are not a Christian nation.

The 14th Amendment applies, so even though TexanMike doesn't like it, who cares?

 

[peach174]

Like it or not we are a Christan Nation.
When 76% of the people in this nation are Christians it makes it a Christan Nation.
The percentage was even higher when we became a nation in 1776.
Our founders intended for God to be included in our Government. But that it should be non- denominational so that all religions would be included.
That is what they do at prayer every morning for the House, Senate and Supreme court. The prayers are always non-denominational,but led by Christians as well as other's.
Just like Muslim nations. When Muslims make up the majority of the nation it is a Muslim Nation.
It is atheists who have tried to get God out of our government ever since the 1960's
Separation of Church and State means that our Government can not endorse a certain type of religion.
It was never, that God should be out of our Government.

Bullshit.

When people talk about the US being "a Christian Nation", they are really saying that Christians should be put in a privileged position over all other faiths in this country.

They may say, it really means just that "Christians are a majority" but its a lie. The phrase is meant to be taken as something else entirely. That's just what they say in polite company.

Usually the conversation also goes to "The US is founded on Judeo-Christian principles" but its also bullshit since none of them can find any reference within the religious texts of those two faiths which apply beyond what is common to virtually all religions.

You are the one who believes the lies.
Never has nor is it now that Christians are in a privileged position.
Christians believe in freedom of religion for all.
That is exactly why we have so many different types. From Christian to Muslim to Jewish and everything in between even to wiccan.
We even have satan worshiper's. They are allowed as long as they don't kill anything.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It all depends what people mean when they say we're a christian nation.

If they're simply saying the majority of americans are christian, that of course is correct.

If they're saying "christian principles" should have a hand in government, that's false in every way.

 

[peach174]

We are a secular republic with a majority of Christians.

We are not a Christian nation.

The 14th Amendment applies, so even though TexanMike doesn't like it, who cares?

You think that Saudi Arabia is not a Muslim nation?
The 14th amendment does not say anywhere, that we are a secular nation.

 

[Texanmike]

We are a secular republic with a majority of Christians.

We are not a Christian nation.

The 14th Amendment applies, so even though TexanMike doesn't like it, who cares?

Can you tell me how it applies? Can you tell me how the 14th amendment doesn't apply? You cannot. You might as well say the 33rd Amendment applies. Hell, reinterpret Mary Had a Little Lamb and declare that IT applies.

You have no desire to determine what was meant by the 14th amendment, you only seek to find a way to use it to mean what you want. I have yet to see you cite anything other than broad statements which are impossible to substantiate.

I'm waiting for your 4 sentence reply.

Mike

 

[koshergrl]

It all depends what people mean when they say we're a christian nation.

If they're simply saying the majority of americans are christian, that of course is correct.

If they're saying "christian principles" should have a hand in government, that's false in every way.

I know, we wouldn't want things like honesty and integrity to intrude upon gov'mint bidness.

 

[CryingKoala]

The 14th amendment does not say anywhere, that we are a secular nation.

You are right, its the 1st Amendment says that. The 14th just says you can't use state's rights as an excuse to ignore it.

"Never has nor is it now that Christians are in a privileged position."

But its the goal of people who use the phrase.
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation
David Barton's Christian Nation: Sham 'Historian' Hits the Big Time in Tea Party America
"The Myth of the Christian Nation: [David] Barton cherry-picks historical documents in an attempt to prove that the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation where all laws conform to biblical teachings. He has also joined the "Seven Mountains" dominionist movement, which seeks to have Christians take control of all parts of government, business and society."

Christians believe in freedom of religion for all.

Not necessarily true, the only older sects which did are the Anabaptists, people who are also fierce supporters of the Separation of Church and State. The concept came from their religious doctrine. Unitarians also believe this as well.

Virtually everyone in between does not. Especially those espousing there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It all depends what people mean when they say we're a christian nation.

If they're simply saying the majority of americans are christian, that of course is correct.

If they're saying "christian principles" should have a hand in government, that's false in every way.

I know, we wouldn't want things like honesty and integrity to intrude upon gov'mint bidness.

Those are principles, not solely christian principles. The adjective is unnecessary.

 

[CryingKoala]

It all depends what people mean when they say we're a christian nation.

If they're simply saying the majority of americans are christian, that of course is correct.

If they're saying "christian principles" should have a hand in government, that's false in every way.

I know, we wouldn't want things like honesty and integrity to intrude upon gov'mint bidness.

After all, Christians are the only people who can be honest or have integrity, right?

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, so if they are acting that way BECAUSE they're Christian, they shouldn't be able to say so.

Nevermind that it's in direct opposition to what the Constitution protects us from...

 

[CryingKoala]

We are a secular republic with a majority of Christians.

We are not a Christian nation.

The 14th Amendment applies, so even though TexanMike doesn't like it, who cares?

Can you tell me how it applies? Can you tell me how the 14th amendment doesn't apply? You cannot. You might as well say the 33rd Amendment applies. Hell, reinterpret Mary Had a Little Lamb and declare that IT applies.

You have no desire to determine what was meant by the 14th amendment, you only seek to find a way to use it to mean what you want. I have yet to see you cite anything other than broad statements which are impossible to substantiate.

I'm waiting for your 4 sentence reply.

Mike

14th Amendment Equal protection under the law means the Bill of Rights protections cannot be disavowed by states.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Civil liberties can never be purely a state matter based on this. They are bound by the 14th Amendment to follow all the parts of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Oh, so if they are acting that way BECAUSE they're Christian, they shouldn't be able to say so.

Nevermind that it's in direct opposition to what the Constitution protects us from...

No, people can say that about our government, and of course be wrong.

I would certainly hope christians aren't saying that our government gets it's current level of honesty and integrity from christianity, that would sound like self-hating to me.

 

[CryingKoala]

Oh, so if they are acting that way BECAUSE they're Christian, they shouldn't be able to say so.

Nevermind that it's in direct opposition to what the Constitution protects us from...

Now you are getting silly. Nobody acts "because of their religion". We have free will (unless you are a Calvinist). Your understanding of the Constitution seems to be suspect as well.

You made a rather goofy statement implying that honesty and integrity are uniquely Christian traits. Obviously it is not true. You haven't qualified your prior remarks at all or acknowledged that it is common to people in general.

But you will persist anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

Like it or not we are a Christan Nation.
When 76% of the people in this nation are Christians it makes it a Christan Nation.
The percentage was even higher when we became a nation in 1776.
Our founders intended for God to be included in our Government. But that it should be non- denominational so that all religions would be included.
That is what they do at prayer every morning for the House, Senate and Supreme court. The prayers are always non-denominational,but led by Christians as well as other's.
Just like Muslim nations. When Muslims make up the majority of the nation it is a Muslim Nation.
It is atheists who have tried to get God out of our government ever since the 1960's
Separation of Church and State means that our Government can not endorse a certain type of religion.
It was never, that God should be out of our Government.

Bullshit.

When people talk about the US being "a Christian Nation", they are really saying that Christians should be put in a privileged position over all other faiths in this country.

They may say, it really means just that "Christians are a majority" but its a lie. The phrase is meant to be taken as something else entirely. That's just what they say in polite company.

Usually the conversation also goes to "The US is founded on Judeo-Christian principles" but its also bullshit since none of them can find any reference within the religious texts of those two faiths which apply beyond what is common to virtually all religions.

And you are dead wrong.

When most people, including myself, talk about the U.S. being a Christian nation, I/we are recognizing the fact that the first settlers were Christians seeking religious freedom for themselves. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written by Christians who, because they were Christian, understood and believed and pronounced that unalienable rights are from God and these must be recognized and protected.

The Founders to a man believed that the Constitution would work only for a moral, religious, and Christian people who understood the concept of unalienable rights and self governance.

They also understood that in order for unalienable rights to be reognized and defended, that no religion, including Christianity, no ideology, no thoughts, ideas, values, or concepts of humankind would be given preference over any other or afforded power over any other.

Whether religious or not, whether Christian or not, all Americans should thank God (or whatever) that this is a Christian nation founded by Christians and structured on Christian principles of unalienable rights for otherwise we would not enjoy the freedoms, opportunities, options, choices, and self determination that we enjoy.