Busting the Myth of Separation of Church and State

[deltex1]

Do you know how tiresome it is for you to make that same silly claim about separation of church and state not being in the constitution, and then somebody taking the time to explain it to you yet again? Ask hannity to give you some new material. It's just dumb to rehash this one again.

Get out the Katyushas!

 

[g5000]

We know that Obama is a muslim

Retard.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.

And that's insufficient in your book? Bitch, please.

 

[g5000]

On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; I sought especially the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different creeds and are especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and explained my doubts. I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 17

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The OP says "pastors should speak up". He has an agenda, he wants to push the 'Christian' religion and have 'Christians' run the government.

Sorry, if you want religion in government then you will have to accept Muslims running for office as they champion their religion as well. And Wiccans, and Hindus.

Religious whacks all through history attempt to get hold of the power of government so they can suppress all other religions.

Not here not ever. Your religion has no more value than any other.

Is there a law somewhere that forbids non-christians from practicing their religion?

For many years after 9/11, every time Muslims tried to build a mosque somewhere, the "Christians" of the town rose up to stop them.

We all remember all the hackery over the "Ground Zero Mosque".

And we have some on the far right claiming Muslims do not have First Amendment protections.

Only in your mind.... I don't recall anyone claiming Muslims do not have first amendment protections. That's just silly.

 

[g5000]

Such is not the natural state of men with regard to religion at the present day, and some extraordinary or incidental cause must be at work in France to prevent the human mind from following its natural inclination and to drive it beyond the limits at which it ought naturally to stop.

I am fully convinced that this extraordinary and incidental cause is the close connection of politics and religion. The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity; cut but the bonds that restrain it, and it will rise once more. I do not know what could restore the Christian church of Europe to the energy of its earlier days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be for human policy to leave to faith the full exercise of the strength which it still retains.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 17



This is EXACTLY what has happened in America in the modern age. We are experiencing the same mortal wounds to religion which France experienced 200 years ago.

Christianity has become "intimately united to the powers of the earth". The unbelievers of America "attack the Christians as their political opponents...they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief."

The very term Religious Right is one which is religion (Religious) and politics (Right) being intimately united.

The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity. As goes the Right as it has become hijacked by maniacs, so goes the religion which bound itself to it down with it.

 

[BULLDOG]

The OP says "pastors should speak up". He has an agenda, he wants to push the 'Christian' religion and have 'Christians' run the government.

Sorry, if you want religion in government then you will have to accept Muslims running for office as they champion their religion as well. And Wiccans, and Hindus.

Religious whacks all through history attempt to get hold of the power of government so they can suppress all other religions.

Not here not ever. Your religion has no more value than any other.

Is there a law somewhere that forbids non-christians from practicing their religion?

For many years after 9/11, every time Muslims tried to build a mosque somewhere, the "Christians" of the town rose up to stop them.

We all remember all the hackery over the "Ground Zero Mosque".

And we have some on the far right claiming Muslims do not have First Amendment protections.

Only in your mind.... I don't recall anyone claiming Muslims do not have first amendment protections. That's just silly.

Bryan Fischer: Muslims Have No First Amendment Rights

 

[g5000]

The OP says "pastors should speak up". He has an agenda, he wants to push the 'Christian' religion and have 'Christians' run the government.

Sorry, if you want religion in government then you will have to accept Muslims running for office as they champion their religion as well. And Wiccans, and Hindus.

Religious whacks all through history attempt to get hold of the power of government so they can suppress all other religions.

Not here not ever. Your religion has no more value than any other.

Is there a law somewhere that forbids non-christians from practicing their religion?

For many years after 9/11, every time Muslims tried to build a mosque somewhere, the "Christians" of the town rose up to stop them.

We all remember all the hackery over the "Ground Zero Mosque".

And we have some on the far right claiming Muslims do not have First Amendment protections.

Only in your mind.... I don't recall anyone claiming Muslims do not have first amendment protections. That's just silly.

O'rly?

Why There’s NO First Amendment Rights For a Religion That Calls for America’s Destruction

Islam and the First Amendment: privileges but not rights

Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims

 

[nat4900]

Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The article @ Myth Busted: ‘Separation of Church and State’ clearly relates how anti-religious organizations have conducted a campaign to frighten pastors from speaking on political ideals from their pulpits, often using outright lies as part of their threats.

It's about time pastors speak up.

WRONG........Separation of church and state has been adjudicated through CASE LAW.......There are at least a dozen key cases where the separation was upheld.

Before you begin the same bullshit about, "those damn judges, what do they know..." think (if possible) about the Citizen United decision.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Why is this an issue for some Christians in the US? Do they want to pass laws based on the Bible and repeal laws not inline with the Bible? Or, I should say, with their particular interpretation of the Bible. No work on Sunday federally mandated? Everyone must tithe, believers or not. All schools have worship? What's the point of eliminating the separation of church and state?

 

[g5000]

Why is this an issue for some Christians in the US? Do they want to pass laws based on the Bible and repeal laws not inline with the Bible? Or, I should say, with their particular interpretation of the Bible. No work on Sunday federally mandated? Everyone must tithe, believers or not. All schools have worship? What's the point of eliminating the separation of church and state?

All those cash and prizes they get from the government weren't meant to be shared with darkies and homos, and that's why God is mad at America.

They want us to show them where "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution, but don't you dare ask them where joint tax returns and Social Security survivor benefits are in the Bible! Oh no, sir. Don't you dare. God doesn't want homos getting those government gifts.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Why is this an issue for some Christians in the US? Do they want to pass laws based on the Bible and repeal laws not inline with the Bible? Or, I should say, with their particular interpretation of the Bible. No work on Sunday federally mandated? Everyone must tithe, believers or not. All schools have worship? What's the point of eliminating the separation of church and state?

All those cash and prizes they get from the government weren't meant to be shared with darkies and homos, and that's why God is mad at America.

They want us to show them where "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution, but don't you dare ask them where joint tax returns and Social Security survivor benefits are in the Bible! Oh no, sir. Don't you dare. God doesn't want homos getting those government gifts.

Is that really what it is? Some animal instinct to live in a nice, easy monoculture as long as it's their culture?

 

[Debra K]

Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The article @ Myth Busted: ‘Separation of Church and State’ clearly relates how anti-religious organizations have conducted a campaign to frighten pastors from speaking on political ideals from their pulpits, often using outright lies as part of their threats.

It's about time pastors speak up.

Perhaps you have not heard of this rule of construction: The law does not permit something to be done through indirection which cannot be done directly.

 

[boilermaker55]

Progressives despise and laugh at your stupidity.

a prime example of the leftards separation....

i despise leftards!!!

 

[boilermaker55]

You are not a nightmare, you are entertaining with your lack of intelligence.

...and must treat all religions equally.

not so in Thomas Jefferson's point of view.., e.g., “to the shores of Tripoli,”

 

[Debra K]

Do you know how tiresome it is for you to make that same silly claim about separation of church and state not being in the constitution, and then somebody taking the time to explain it to you yet again? Ask hannity to give you some new material. It's just dumb to rehash this one again.

Perhaps you can point out where in the constitution "Separation of church and state" is specifically mentioned?

I'll wait.

How can we prevent the government from establishing religion if the two (church and state) are not separated? The lack of separation is equivalent, indirectly, to the establishment of religion. Can you understand the concept that the law does not allow you to do a forbidden thing through indirection that you cannot do directly?

 

[Rustic]

Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The article @ Myth Busted: ‘Separation of Church and State’ clearly relates how anti-religious organizations have conducted a campaign to frighten pastors from speaking on political ideals from their pulpits, often using outright lies as part of their threats.

It's about time pastors speak up.

Dumbass progressives...

 

[Debra K]

Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The article @ Myth Busted: ‘Separation of Church and State’ clearly relates how anti-religious organizations have conducted a campaign to frighten pastors from speaking on political ideals from their pulpits, often using outright lies as part of their threats.

It's about time pastors speak up.

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant "argument."

Nope. If it can be shown that the "case law" is not founded on anything in the Constitution, that that case law is bad and should be overturned.

THUS, it is not a "failed and ignorant argument".

Brilliant!

The Constitution explicitly forbids the WORDS "establishment of religion", so ... if we want the government to establish religion ... then we'll just have to give that old pernicious thing a new name ... let's call it "intermingling of church and state". The constitution doesn't forbid those words! That's so smart ... ROFL

And this old "case law" should be ignored ...

Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief, which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/29/410.html#sthash.A02rft9r.dpuf

 

[The Great Goose]

In Australia the churches contract all the homeless shelters, charity orgs and employment agencies. It's disgusting. They use tax payers money to push their crazy rubbish.

We do a lot of that here. Google faith based initiatives.

Well they dont survive from the collection plate.

 

[Correll]

Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The article @ Myth Busted: ‘Separation of Church and State’ clearly relates how anti-religious organizations have conducted a campaign to frighten pastors from speaking on political ideals from their pulpits, often using outright lies as part of their threats.

It's about time pastors speak up.

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant "argument."

Nope. If it can be shown that the "case law" is not founded on anything in the Constitution, that that case law is bad and should be overturned.

THUS, it is not a "failed and ignorant argument".

Brilliant!

The Constitution explicitly forbids the WORDS "establishment of religion", so ... if we want the government to establish religion ... then we'll just have to give that old pernicious thing a new name ... let's call it "intermingling of church and state". The constitution doesn't forbid those words! That's so smart ... ROFL

And this old "case law" should be ignored ...

Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief, which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so. - See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Your belief system that I was playing some word game is incorrect. YOu are welcome to try again.