Busting the Myth of Separation of Church and State

[IsaacNewton]

The day the government comes to a church door and says 'we are closing this church, you cannot worship as you please any more', I will be standing in front of the church to defend it and its followers.

The day any religion gets hold of the powers of the government and states or attempts to impose that religion, whatever it is, on the rest of the population I will be standing in defense of the rest of the population.

With all due hostility for either scenario.

 

[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.

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

It's a fear of the unknown. That's why almost every extraterrestrial movie portrays aliens as hostile, even though they are, by definition, an advanced species.

We prefer faces which look like our own, and behaviors like our own.

 

[jillian]

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.

so my religion should be enacted into law and I should be able to force you not to eat pork or shellfish?

 

[g5000]

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.

so my religion should be enacted into law and I should be able to force you not to eat pork or shellfish?

Have you ever noticed how violent pork eaters are? Bacon is a religion of violence!

 

[jillian]

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.

so my religion should be enacted into law and I should be able to force you not to eat pork or shellfish?

Have you ever noticed how violent pork eaters are? Bacon is a religion of violence!

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You're right. The people who say the churches should take care of the poor so the government doesn't have to just don't understand that the churches aren't doing it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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".

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Separation of church and state can be found here in the Constitution:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

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

You may disagree if you wish, ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't change the settled and accepted fact that the Supreme Court determines the meaning of the Constitution, a fundamental fact of law beyond dispute.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against"
-- James Madison; from letter to Edward Livingston (July 10, 1822)

I totally agree with this which is why Islam should be wiped out because it doesn't allow other religions to coexist along side of it. On this issue I totally agree with you. Lets get those crazy Christ...muslim religious whackos!

Or... we could just maintain our constitutional protections against all threats.

What threat to anyone's religious freedom currently exist?

You can't be serious.

There is currently a republican presidential candidate advocating that Muslims be 'registered' and mosques 'investigated' – threats against religious liberty most certainly exist.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals quickly to the defense of muslims and mosques.

They have nothing but cliches.

Stupid ass hypocritical clowns. All of them.

 

[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.

Bryan Fischer: Muslims Have No First Amendment Rights

Well, never heard of this guy and he sounds like a nut.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.. and I will say this, see how many 1st amendment rights would be afforded you under Sharia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals quickly to the defense of muslims and mosques.

They have nothing but cliches.

Stupid ass hypocritical clowns. All of them.

And this illustrates the stupidity and bigotry common to many on the right – as if there's something 'wrong' with being Muslim, or 'wrong' to defend Muslim Americans from the bigotry and hate that manifests among many conservatives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Well, never heard of this guy and he sounds like a nut.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.. and I will say this, see how many 1st amendment rights would be afforded you under Sharia.

This fails as both a straw man fallacy and red herring fallacy.

Well done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Well, never heard of this guy and he sounds like a nut.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.. and I will say this, see how many 1st amendment rights would be afforded you under Sharia.

lol

"Don't paint with such a broad brush..."

And then you proceed to broad brush Muslims - too funny.

 

[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.

You're right. The people who say the churches should take care of the poor so the government doesn't have to just don't understand that the churches aren't doing it.

They are taking the governments money though. Bastards.

 

[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: 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.

I can see what you're doing. Your denial is disingenuous. If you aren't playing a word game, then explain the comment you made within the context of this discussion (i.e., the alleged "myth" pertaining to separation of church and state). Identify the relevant cases that are "not founded on anything in the Constitution" and explain why they should be overturned.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So the op wants us to become a religious fundie state like turkey? That doesn't sound so good.

 

[Rustic]

So the op wants us to become a religious fundie state like turkey? That doesn't sound so good.

 

[nat4900]

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?

Perhaps a secret admiration and desire to be just like the Taliban.

 

[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

Well, never heard of this guy and he sounds like a nut.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.. and I will say this, see how many 1st amendment rights would be afforded you under Sharia.

What makes you think that allowing Muslims their rights in any way would introduce Sharia law to the US?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You're right. The people who say the churches should take care of the poor so the government doesn't have to just don't understand that the churches aren't doing it.

They are taking the governments money though. Bastards.

I think that money is probably going to what it is designated for, but without government funding, the churches wouldn't even be scratching the surface as far as helping the poor.