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

[Intense]

Here is something from the Colony of New York.

CHARTER OF LIBERTIES AND PRIVILEGES - 1683

[This is New York’s first Constitution of democratic government passed by the first New York legislature, October 30, 1683. It was the first of its kind in the colonies. This charter was suspended in 1685 but was essentially re-enacted by the charter of 1691 which remained, in principle, the Constitution for the Colony until the American Revolution in 1776. See The Constitutional History of New York by Charles Z. Lincoln, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing company Rochester NY, 1906.) - RAF]

27. [Religious toleration.]

THAT Noe person or persons which professe ffaith in God by Jesus Christ Shall at any time be any wayes molested punished disquieted or called in Question for any Difference in opinion or Matter of Religious Concernment...1st N.Y. Constitution

Which for the 17th/18th Century would be a model of ecumenism and inclusiveness. The actual goal of the Establishment Clause. About 50 to 100 years later it would not have been. Hence my prior argument about the ahistorical nature of using such quotations without grounding it in the culture from when they were written.


More likely than not much of it was excised as the state became more religiously diverse.
If you want a real example of where our concept of the Establishment Clause came from, use the Rhode Island or Pennsylvania Charter or State Constitution.

You are a Fucking Idiot. The argument is not about you or your failed perspective,the argument existed before your birth. You want the perspective of The 1st New York Constitution, read it, moron.

The Establishment Clause was rooted in Christ's teaching of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's, articulated by John Locke, and expanded on by James Madison. There is evidence of Locke's teaching in the Declaration Of Independence, Memorial and Remonstrance, and the Virginia Constitution.

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

Constitution of Virginia

The one constant I see with you is you bending reality in your mind to make it fit your position. Hint. Go to the source, stop with the psychobabble.

 

[koshergrl]

LOL you guys are still here.

The constitution never called for a separation of church and state.

If i'm wrong post the line, from the constitution, that does this.

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Arguing against a point that was never made, I see.

Nobody has asked that congress make a law establishing a state religion. If this is your entire argument, you're in trouble.

 

[Dr.Drock]

LOL you guys are still here.

The constitution never called for a separation of church and state.

If i'm wrong post the line, from the constitution, that does this.

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Arguing against a point that was never made, I see.

Nobody has asked that congress make a law establishing a state religion. If this is your entire argument, you're in trouble.

They just want Bible lines posted all over government property and mangers on capital hill at christmas time.

But who knows what religion that could be for, buddhism? Islam? Scientology?

We'll never know!!!

 

[koshergrl]

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Arguing against a point that was never made, I see.

Nobody has asked that congress make a law establishing a state religion. If this is your entire argument, you're in trouble.

They just want Bible lines posted all over government property and mangers on capital hill at christmas time.

But who knows what religion that could be for, buddhism? Islam? Scientology?

We'll never know!!!

There's nothing in the Constitution that says one can't post lines on property or place decorative mangers on the lawn.

If that constituted law, then taggers would have been establishing law for years with their graffiti.

What you object to is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Sadly (for you) both are protected. And the cries that the Constitution forbids public references to God are just excuses to shut down both freedoms.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Arguing against a point that was never made, I see.

Nobody has asked that congress make a law establishing a state religion. If this is your entire argument, you're in trouble.

They just want Bible lines posted all over government property and mangers on capital hill at christmas time.

But who knows what religion that could be for, buddhism? Islam? Scientology?

We'll never know!!!

There's nothing in the Constitution that says one can't post lines on property or place decorative mangers on the lawn.

If that constituted law, then taggers would have been establishing law for years with their graffiti.

What you object to is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Sadly (for you) both are protected. And the cries that the Constitution forbids public references to God are just excuses to shut down both freedoms.

Like the original person said in the quote and the Constitution states, you can't establish a religion. Bible lines all over gov't property and mangers on christmas is doing exactly that.

I have no issue with freedom of speech or religion as your strawman tries to imply. I don't care if on every street corner there's groups of people screaming lines from the Bible and I don't care if every building on private property is a church. So take another swing, you're down 0-1 in the count.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it isn't.

LAWS establishing religion. Stick to the words that are actually there. Posting snippets from the bible or mangers on the grass do NOT establish laws.

Unless you are proposing that writing on walls is the way we establish law?

 

[koshergrl]

And there are lines and references to the bible pasted all over our history and our historical buildings. It has only become an issue in the last few years, with the advent of liberals who want to see our freedom of religion and speech eliminated.

 

[Gadawg73]

My ancestor Jacob Terhune defeated those here that wanted religous influences in government.
I carry on the tradition here and everywhere fighting those that attempt to reinstate it.
100,000 from all of the colonies, those that supported the crown and the Christian church authorizing the theory of divine right of power from God, were run out of this country because of their support of God, not man, having the power and influence in government.
Good riddance.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, it isn't.

LAWS establishing religion. Stick to the words that are actually there. Posting snippets from the bible or mangers on the grass do NOT establish laws.

Unless you are proposing that writing on walls is the way we establish law?

A law making it ok to cover US gov't property with christianity is establishing the US gov't as a christian entity.


I'd love to see government property being equally inclusive of all religions, but I'm sure you'd hate that.

 

[Gadawg73]

And there are lines and references to the bible pasted all over our history and our historical buildings. It has only become an issue in the last few years, with the advent of liberals who want to see our freedom of religion and speech eliminated.

How does a religous saying on a damn wall on a government building give you any more freedom of religion or speech that you do not already have?
Respectfully, that is about the stupidest thing I have seen here.
You take your freedom for granted.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm amazed that people can pretend, with a straight face, that referencing God in public is the same thing as establishing a law. Please provide some evidence that we have laws that have been established in such a way. I would like to know what specific laws are in place today as a direct result of graffiti. You claim that writing on public buildings "creates" law. Please show me an example.

Anyway, the Constitution was specific. Religion and speech are protected. People are allowed to reference God without fear of being persecuted in this country, even by liars who pretend that talking about God and writing about God are the same as creating laws.

 

[Gadawg73]

You can reference God all you want to in public, all day long 24/7.
Do you make this up as you go along?

 

[koshergrl]

I was under the impression that you wanted to squelch any reference to God by public figures? In public places?

Perhaps you misunderstood what you are saying.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I was under the impression that you wanted to squelch any reference to God by public figures? In public places?

Perhaps you misunderstood what you are saying.

Yep, you are making it up as you go along.



Who has ever said, anywhere, that we're against public figures talking about god in public places?

 

[koshergrl]

So I'm still waiting for the evidence that writing things on public buildings establishes law.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So I'm still waiting for the evidence that writing things on public buildings establishes law.

A law making it ok to cover US gov't property with christianity is establishing the US gov't as a christian entity.



Let me know how many times you need me to copy and paste that for it to sink in.

 

[Intense]

They just want Bible lines posted all over government property and mangers on capital hill at christmas time.

But who knows what religion that could be for, buddhism? Islam? Scientology?

We'll never know!!!

There's nothing in the Constitution that says one can't post lines on property or place decorative mangers on the lawn.

If that constituted law, then taggers would have been establishing law for years with their graffiti.

What you object to is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Sadly (for you) both are protected. And the cries that the Constitution forbids public references to God are just excuses to shut down both freedoms.

Like the original person said in the quote and the Constitution states, you can't establish a religion. Bible lines all over gov't property and mangers on christmas is doing exactly that.

I have no issue with freedom of speech or religion as your strawman tries to imply. I don't care if on every street corner there's groups of people screaming lines from the Bible and I don't care if every building on private property is a church. So take another swing, you're down 0-1 in the count.

Like the original person said in the quote and the Constitution states, you can't establish a religion. Bible lines all over gov't property and mangers on christmas is doing exactly that.

Or, the implication may point out your own insecurity issues. Be a Community Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, to see references to Faith on Public Property should not be a surprise, nor an offense. What comes next here, using your logic, If I'm standing on Government Property I should have the Right to have anything Religious that offends me, obstructed from my view? I'm in the Public Square and the Crucifix or Star of David you are wearing offends me, so remove it? I think mot. We are always free to pray in our closets, you misunderstand Freedom of Religion and misapply the establishment clause. Maybe the Government needs to give up some of It's Property, or consider that The Constitution was indeed constructed to protect both the People and the State and Local Governments, from the encroachment and Tyranny of Federal Governments Power and Authority.
The Establishment Clause was designed to protect from the effects of Religious Dogma, the battling between Sects, Power Plays, Not Ideals and Values. Ideals and Values stand on their own merit. Or, would you have us remove, "Do Not Murder", "Do Not Steal", Do Not Bear False Witness", from our Statutes? There are too many Government Records with reference to God to number. The only motive for offense here that I can see, would seem that some are in competition with God, or want to play him. Our authority and ability is limited, His is not, deal with it. Jew's Christian's, Muslim's, at the least accept that. In matters of Conscience, Government needs to show cause, to obstruct or interfere. You have not done that. To bad you don't spend as much time defending Liberty and Justice, and fighting Tyranny, as you do fighting the tide and chasing windmills.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says one can't post lines on property or place decorative mangers on the lawn.

If that constituted law, then taggers would have been establishing law for years with their graffiti.

What you object to is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Sadly (for you) both are protected. And the cries that the Constitution forbids public references to God are just excuses to shut down both freedoms.

Like the original person said in the quote and the Constitution states, you can't establish a religion. Bible lines all over gov't property and mangers on christmas is doing exactly that.

I have no issue with freedom of speech or religion as your strawman tries to imply. I don't care if on every street corner there's groups of people screaming lines from the Bible and I don't care if every building on private property is a church. So take another swing, you're down 0-1 in the count.

Like the original person said in the quote and the Constitution states, you can't establish a religion. Bible lines all over gov't property and mangers on christmas is doing exactly that.

Or, the implication may point out your own insecurity issues. Be a Community Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, to see references to Faith on Public Property should not be a surprise, nor an offense. What comes next here, using your logic, If I'm standing on Government Property I should have the Right to have anything Religious that offends me, obstructed from my view? I'm in the Public Square and the Crucifix or Star of David you are wearing offends me, so remove it? I think mot. We are always free to pray in our closets, you misunderstand Freedom of Religion and misapply the establishment clause. Maybe the Government needs to give up some of It's Property, or consider that The Constitution was indeed constructed to protect both the People and the State and Local Governments, from the encroachment and Tyranny of Federal Governments Power and Authority.
The Establishment Clause was designed to protect from the effects of Religious Dogma, the battling between Sects, Power Plays, Not Ideals and Values. Ideals and Values stand on their own merit. Or, would you have us remove, "Do Not Murder", "Do Not Steal", Do Not Bear False Witness", from our Statutes? There are too many Government Records with reference to God to number. The only motive for offense here that I can see, would seem that some are in competition with God, or want to play him. Our authority and ability is limited, His is not, deal with it. Jew's Christian's, Muslim's, at the least accept that. In matters of Conscience, Government needs to show cause, to obstruct or interfere. You have not done that. To bad you don't spend as much time defending Liberty and Justice, and fighting Tyranny, as you do fighting the tide and chasing windmills.

The first paragraph was jibberish, it doesn't offend me to have those things on public property, it's agaisnt the Constitution and unlawful.

I've already stated people can showcase their religion on public property, guess this whole thread will just be me repeating myself.

Please tell me how putting a manger on a capital building law is showing "ideals and merits."

"Our authority and ability is limited, His is not, deal with it."

Might as well just tell me you want the Bible to supercede the Constitution in law. Sad.

I'm siding with liberty and justice, like I said I want you to have the ability to round up all your pals and scream Bible verses as loud as you can 24/7/365 from every street corner. It's sad you feel it's absolutely necessary for the government to have the power to promote christianity, if you were a jew or muslim or non-believer, frankly anyone besides a christian you wouldn't feel this way. If gov't did a religion swap and decided to stop promoting christianity and start promoting Hinduisum or Islam I'm sure you do a 180 spin on your position.

I repeat, separation of church and state does a lot more to protect you hardcore believers than it does us agnostics/atheists. We don't have a religion that gov't can try to interfere with, you do.

 

[Intense]

So I'm still waiting for the evidence that writing things on public buildings establishes law.

A law making it ok to cover US gov't property with christianity is establishing the US gov't as a christian entity.



Let me know how many times you need me to copy and paste that for it to sink in.

Square peg, round hole Syndrome?

Really? You are that impressionable and insecure? Nah.

 

[koshergrl]

So what he is saying is that there is no law that has come about from writings on government buildings...but that he wants to ESTABLISH a law curtailing freedom of speech/freedom of religion, to PREVENT anyone from referencing God on a public building.