GOPer pushing for State Sponsored Religion

[Skylar]

how do you 'separate' a citizen's conscience from his religion....?

You separate a citizens religion from the law. Their conscience is theirs to enjoy alone.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

how do you 'separate' a citizen's conscience from his religion....?

You separate a citizens religion from the law. Their conscience is theirs to enjoy alone.

lots of laws and religious beliefs come from the same conscience....how do you 'separate' them.....?

 

[Skylar]

how do you 'separate' a citizen's conscience from his religion....?

You separate a citizens religion from the law. Their conscience is theirs to enjoy alone.

lots of laws and religious beliefs come from the same conscience....how do you 'separate' them.....?

Absolutely. Thou shall not kill could be motivated from secular and non-secular beliefs and morality. However, pushing the Bible being taught in schools, for example, is far less likely to be motivated by something other than religious belief. When the law is used to promote a particular religion over another, that's where a line is crossed.

Additionally, we can weight any law against the rational need and the serving of a compelling state interest. Take, gay marriage bans. Many people are religious motivated in supporting them. However, when we weigh the bans against our law void of religious justification, the bans don't hold up. As there's no compelling state interest in preventing gays and lesbians from marrying nor a rational reason to prevent them from marrying.

If a given law only works when we use explicitly religious justifications, it fails. If a given law works without religious justifications, it passes. Even if a particular voter was religiously motivated in voting for it.

You can't tell a person what they are allowed to think and be motivated by when they vote. That's a matter of own conscience. You can, however, remove any laws that can only be justified with religious reasoning or laws that expressly promote one religion over another.

 

[koshergrl]

Government forcing one religion on the people as a way to end tyranny?

Look at it from the perspective of many conservatives. Liberty is freedom from federal oversight. Where federal protections are stripped from the people, and States can override them. Liberty is something that the States have. Not the people. The people are subject to whatever whim of their State legislatures.

At least in the conceptualization of 'liberty' being fronted by many of our conservative friends.

Oh, ok. If you say so.

 

[peach174]

what do you mean by 'official policy'.....?

Governmental policy.

as in the Constitution.......or something else.....?

Is there officially, legally separation of church and state? Yes or no?

No
Jefferson's letter to the Baptists was about the Federal Government not being able to help them and that they had to do it at their States Legislation level which they did.
It was not about the Government not having God.

I don't know what letters you read.
From the Danbury Baptistsrelevant part)

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

Not sure how you think that was asking for Federal aid. It was fear that the majority religion would, through the power of the state, dominate the minority to its detriment.

The Danbury Baptist Association was founded in 1790 as a coalition of about 26 churches in the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut had established Congregationalism as its official state religion. It was as a persecuted religious minority that they wrote to President Jefferson asking for his help in overthrowing the establishment.

The Danbury Baptists were not just sending a letter of congratulations, they were asking Jefferson do something: that is, to end the establishment of Congregationalism in Connecticut. Jefferson's letter was about the Federal Government not being able to do anything about it and that they needed to do it at their State level which they did.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, ok. If you say so

Its not my perspective. Take....Ron Paul. He has argued repeatedly that the United States Supreme Court should be forbidden from ruling on issues of abortion. That abortion should then be sent back from the States. And that once in the realm of the States, that abortion should be criminalized.

Turning a Federal right...into a State crime. Exactly as I described above.

Look at the debates on gay marriage. Many conservatives are touting the authority of the 10th amendment and championing States Rights. They are largely ignoring the 9th amendment and individual liberties, arguing instead that the State should be able to strip rights from a minority if the majority believes they should.

When you put the rights of the State above the rights of the People, you're mirroring what many conservatives *actually* believe. And what they actually describe when they speak of 'liberty' and 'freedom'. Its liberty from federal oversight. And the freedom to strip individual state citizens of rights by their State legislatures.

Not all conservatives. But many of them.

 

[Skylar]

The Danbury Baptist Association was founded in 1790 as a coalition of about 26 churches in the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut had established Congregationalism as its official state religion. It was as a persecuted religious minority that they wrote to President Jefferson asking for his help in overthrowing the establishment.

The Danbury Baptists were not just sending a letter of congratulations, they were asking Jefferson do something: that is, to end the establishment of Congregationalism in Connecticut. Jefferson's letter was about the Federal Government not being able to do anything about and that they needed to do it at their State level which they did.

The bill of rights didn't apply to the States. The restrictions on government promoted religion didn't apply to the States. These were restrictions on the Federal Government. Church membership was a statutory requirement in parts of Pennsylvania if you wanted to vote. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century the 14th amendment was finally applied to the States, albeit incrementally and selectively.

 

[Ibentoken]

Is there officially, legally separation of church and state? Yes or no?

what kind of 'separation' are you talking about....?

Separation.....but I see that you are now trying to back out.

not at all.....you need to define what kind of 'separation' you are talking about....

can you separate a citizen from his religion....?

The separation as in the phrase "separation of church and state". Do you believe it exists legally or not? Yes or no?

how do you 'separate' a citizen's conscience from his religion....?

Through government tyranny.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

how do you 'separate' a citizen's conscience from his religion....?

You separate a citizens religion from the law. Their conscience is theirs to enjoy alone.

lots of laws and religious beliefs come from the same conscience....how do you 'separate' them.....?

Absolutely. Thou shall not kill could be motivated from secular and non-secular beliefs and morality. However, pushing the Bible being taught in schools, for example, is far less likely to be motivated by something other than religious belief. When the law is used to promote a particular religion over another, that's where a line is crossed.

Additionally, we can weight any law against the rational need and the serving of a compelling state interest. Take, gay marriage bans. Many people are religious motivated in supporting them. However, when we weigh the bans against our law void of religious justification, the bans don't hold up. As there's no compelling state interest in preventing gays and lesbians from marrying nor a rational reason to prevent them from marrying.

If a given law only works when we use explicitly religious justifications, it fails. If a given law works without religious justifications, it passes. Even if a particular voter was religiously motivated in voting for it.

You can't tell a person what they are allowed to think and be motivated by when they vote. That's a matter of own conscience. You can, however, remove any laws that can only be justified with religious reasoning or laws that expressly promote one religion over another.

nobody is saying we need to 'promote' one religion over another....everyone can believe what they want to believe but they should be able to believe what they believe in the public square.....not hide religious beliefs that may also be applicable to creating a great nation of good laws...

if citizens want to ban gay marriage they should be able to since there is nothing in the Constitution preventing that...there are plenty of rational reasons to do so and Americans have voted against it.....judges should not consider their votes 'religious' in origin and thus not of 'compelling state interest'....the 'compelling state interest' here is what the citizens have voted for....

arbitrarily labeling any belief 'religious' and therefore not acceptable in law means that a citizen must change his conscience in order to participate in government...

 

[Antares]

Georgia Republican: State-sponsored religion will end big-government tyranny

Georgia Republican Congressional hopeful Jody Hice said on his radio show on Thursday
that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was correct in remarks he made recently regarding faith in U.S. society.

In a speech at Colorado Christian University, Scalia said that not only is government endorsement of religion constitutional, but that it is in the country’s best interests to adhere to Biblical law.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Scalia said to the heavily Christian audience.

Government forcing one religion on the people as a way to end tyranny?

I'm thinking this joker has to be a Dem plant, no one, I mean no one can be that friggin' stupid.

You remain an ignorant liar, there is NOTHING in your article pertaining to what you claim.

 

[Dana7360]

Georgia Republican: State-sponsored religion will end big-government tyranny

Georgia Republican Congressional hopeful Jody Hice said on his radio show on Thursday
that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was correct in remarks he made recently regarding faith in U.S. society.

In a speech at Colorado Christian University, Scalia said that not only is government endorsement of religion constitutional, but that it is in the country’s best interests to adhere to Biblical law.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Scalia said to the heavily Christian audience.

Government forcing one religion on the people as a way to end tyranny?

I'm thinking this joker has to be a Dem plant, no one, I mean no one can be that friggin' stupid.

I used to think that I've seen the most stupid thing or heard the most stupid thing ever from a conservative. Then soon after another conservative does or says something even more stupid.

I stopped believing that they can't get any more stupid than they are now.

Yes they can.

My question is what is going to happen to people like me who aren't christian?

We already saw that happens when the government and religion merge, there were a lot of people burned and persecuted as witches in Salem. We already saw what happens when the government favors one religion, christianity, over others. hitler killed 6 million jewish people. hitler favored christianity and used the christian church. The same can be said about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Or what will happen to those christians who are members of a small sect or members of a sect that most other christians don't recognize. Such as the mormon faith?

The best way to preserve religion, ALL, religion is for religion to stay out of government and for government to stay out of religion.

 

[peach174]

The Danbury Baptist Association was founded in 1790 as a coalition of about 26 churches in the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut had established Congregationalism as its official state religion. It was as a persecuted religious minority that they wrote to President Jefferson asking for his help in overthrowing the establishment.

The Danbury Baptists were not just sending a letter of congratulations, they were asking Jefferson do something: that is, to end the establishment of Congregationalism in Connecticut. Jefferson's letter was about the Federal Government not being able to do anything about and that they needed to do it at their State level which they did.

The bill of rights didn't apply to the States. The restrictions on government promoted religion didn't apply to the States. These were restrictions on the Federal Government. Church membership was a statutory requirement in parts of Pennsylvania if you wanted to vote. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century the 14th amendment was finally applied to the States, albeit incrementally and selectively.

The Baptists' concern was not about free exercise; it was about Connecticut's religious establishment, which taxed Baptists for the maintenance of Congregationalist churches unless they submitted to the "degrading" practice of obtaining exemption certificates which routed their tax money to their own congregations.
The Baptists changed their Sate Constitution which is what Jefferson letter was telling them that it needed to be done at their Sate Level not the Federal Level
Connecticut in 1818.
The revised state Constitution read, in part:
No person shall, by law, be compelled to join or support, nor be classed with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious association . . . If any person shall choose to separate himself from the society or denomination of Christians to which he may belong, and shall leave a written notice thereof with the clerk of such society, he shall thereupon be no longer liable for any future expenses which may be incurred by said society.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Georgia Republican: State-sponsored religion will end big-government tyranny

Georgia Republican Congressional hopeful Jody Hice said on his radio show on Thursday
that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was correct in remarks he made recently regarding faith in U.S. society.

In a speech at Colorado Christian University, Scalia said that not only is government endorsement of religion constitutional, but that it is in the country’s best interests to adhere to Biblical law.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Scalia said to the heavily Christian audience.

Government forcing one religion on the people as a way to end tyranny?

I'm thinking this joker has to be a Dem plant, no one, I mean no one can be that friggin' stupid.

I used to think that I've seen the most stupid thing or heard the most stupid thing ever from a conservative. Then soon after another conservative does or says something even more stupid.

I stopped believing that they can't get any more stupid than they are now.

Yes they can.

My question is what is going to happen to people like me who aren't christian?

We already saw that happens when the government and religion merge, there were a lot of people burned and persecuted as witches in Salem. We already saw what happens when the government favors one religion, christianity, over others. hitler killed 6 million jewish people. hitler favored christianity and used the christian church. The same can be said about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Or what will happen to those christians who are members of a small sect or members of a sect that most other christians don't recognize. Such as the mormon faith?

The best way to preserve religion, ALL, religion is for religion to stay out of government and for government to stay out of religion.

like they've done in those godless communist countries......where millions were killed for not followiing godless communist law.....?

 

[Skylar]

nobody is saying we need to 'promote' one religion over another.

I disagree. There are plenty of conservatives that argue that the Bible should be taught in public schools, that advocate Christian prayer in public schools, that advocate the promotion of Biblical Values, oppose the construction of Muslim mosques using the law to prevent them, or have explicitly forbidden any influence from Islam or Sharia law in the creation of State law.

All of these activities would promote one religion over another. Specifically, Christianity over any other. With special attempts to prevent Islam from doing the same.

...everyone can believe what they want to believe but they should be able to believe what they believe in the public square.....not hide religious beliefs that may also be applicable to creating a great nation of good laws...

I don't kn of any law that would prevent citizens from say, praying in a public park. Or praying at a school. But official participation in religious ceremonies by schools, government agencies and government officials representing those agencies would be problematic. As unless they performed religious ceremonies for all religions, they would be promoting one of them over others.

if citizens want to ban gay marriage they should be able to since there is nothing in the Constitution preventing that.

Sure there is. The 14th amendment. It forbids the State from violating the rights of individuals or from treating them unequally in the law. As marriage is a recognized right, the State would need to provide a compelling state interest in denying such right. And a rational reason for denying that right.

As there is neither, the courts have not been kind to opponents of gay marriage.

..there are plenty of rational reasons to do so and Americans have voted against it.....judges should not consider their votes 'religious' in origin and thus not of 'compelling state interest'....the 'compelling state interest' here is what the citizens have voted for....

The people don't possess the authority to vote away rights of minorities as it relates to marriage. This was firmly established in Loving V. Virginia when interracial marriage bans were overturned despite strong popular support in Virginia.

You'd need a compelling state interest. Say, funding the State. Or national security. Or protecting the public from immediate harm. Something specific that could be achieved in no other reasonably plausible way. And there's nothing the State gains by preventing gay marriage. No funding occurs. No security issues are met. No harm is prevented. The State can't even come up with a rational reason why to deny gays and lesbians marriage. The States do it...because they can.

That's not good enough for denying rights.

arbitrarily labeling any belief 'religious' and therefore not acceptable in law means that a citizen must change his conscience in order to participate in government...

The motivations for voting are irrelevant. But the justifications for the law in court are quite relevant. There's no state interest served in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, nor any rational reason to do it. Some folks have argued it goes against God's plan. That 'God hates Fags'. That we'd become another Sodom.

These aren't not valid legal arguments as each is based in interpretations of religious doctrine and religious faith. Not the law. Such determinations aren't 'arbitrary'. As the expressions are explicitly religious. Any law that cannot stand without religious justification is a violation of church and state. As its an imposition of religious doctrine under the law, without any other compelling state interest or rational reason.

Which is why gay marriage bans keep falling. As they have no such compelling state interest or rational reason.

 

[Skylar]

The Baptists' concern was not about free exercise; it was about Connecticut's religious establishment, which taxed Baptists for the maintenance of Congregationalist churches unless they submitted to the "degrading" practice of obtaining exemption certificates which routed their tax money to their own congregations.

And there were no federal protections to prevent it. As the States were more than free to impose religious requirements for office, for voting, apply taxes to churches they didn't want, etc. None of the Bill of Rights applied to the States until near the turn of the 20th century.

The Baptists changed their Sate Constitution which is what Jefferson letter was telling them that it needed to be done at their Sate Level not the Federal Level
Connecticut in 1818.
The revised state Constitution read, in part:
No person shall, by law, be compelled to join or support, nor be classed with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious association . . . If any person shall choose to separate himself from the society or denomination of Christians to which he may belong, and shall leave a written notice thereof with the clerk of such society, he shall thereupon be no longer liable for any future expenses which may be incurred by said society.

[/quote]

And changes in the State Constitution would need to be the way it was done before the application of the 14th amendment. Now, the issue can be raised in federal courts on the basis of protecting the rights of Federal Citizens from State laws.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

nobody is saying we need to 'promote' one religion over another.

I disagree. There are plenty of conservatives that argue that the Bible should be taught in public schools, that advocate Christian prayer in public schools, that advocate the promotion of Biblical Values, oppose the construction of Muslim mosques using the law to prevent them, or have explicitly forbidden any influence from Islam or Sharia law in the creation of State law.

All of these activities would promote one religion over another. Specifically, Christianity over any other. With special attempts to prevent Islam from doing the same.

godless liberals are afraid of Christianity being promoted by a majority of citizens.....Islam would never be compatible with our Constitution...

...everyone can believe what they want to believe but they should be able to believe what they believe in the public square.....not hide religious beliefs that may also be applicable to creating a great nation of good laws...

I don't kn of any law that would prevent citizens from say, praying in a public park. Or praying at a school. But official participation in religious ceremonies by schools, government agencies and government officials representing those agencies would be problematic. As unless they performed religious ceremonies for all religions, they would be promoting one of them over others.

so we can also ban official participation in liberal/godless ceremonies by schools, government agencies etc....?

if George Washington were alive today would you ban him too....?

if citizens want to ban gay marriage they should be able to since there is nothing in the Constitution preventing that.

Sure there is. The 14th amendment. It forbids the State from violating the rights of individuals or from treating them unequally in the law. As marriage is a recognized right, the State would need to provide a compelling state interest in denying such right. And a rational reason for denying that right.

As there is neither, the courts have not been kind to opponents of gay marriage.

the 14th is about race.....it's amazing how liberals can find so much nonsense between the lines...

..there are plenty of rational reasons to do so and Americans have voted against it.....judges should not consider their votes 'religious' in origin and thus not of 'compelling state interest'....the 'compelling state interest' here is what the citizens have voted for....

The people don't possess the authority to vote away rights of minorities as it relates to marriage. This was firmly established in Loving V. Virginia when interracial marriage bans were overturned despite strong popular support in Virginia.

You'd need a compelling state interest. Say, funding the State. Or national security. Or protecting the public from immediate harm. Something specific that could be achieved in no other reasonably plausible way. And there's nothing the State gains by preventing gay marriage. No funding occurs. No security issues are met. No harm is prevented. The State can't even come up with a rational reason why to deny gays and lesbians marriage. The States do it...because they can.

That's not good enough for denying rights.

interracial is not the same as sexual preferences.....get back when you can prove deviancy is a minority right....

one compelling state interest is the protection of children....but liberals don't give a damn about our kids...

arbitrarily labeling any belief 'religious' and therefore not acceptable in law means that a citizen must change his conscience in order to participate in government...

The motivations for voting are irrelevant. But the justifications for the law in court are quite relevant. There's no state interest served in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, nor any rational reason to do it. Some folks have argued it goes against God's plan. That 'God hates Fags'. That we'd become another Sodom.

These aren't not valid legal arguments as each is based in interpretations of religious doctrine and religious faith. Not the law. Such determinations aren't 'arbitrary'. As the expressions are explicitly religious. Any law that cannot stand without religious justification is a violation of church and state. As its an imposition of religious doctrine under the law, without any other compelling state interest or rational reason.

Which is why gay marriage bans keep falling. As they have no such compelling state interest or rational reason.

citizens votes are justification enough for matters not spelled out in the Constitution.....there is plenty of rational reasoning behind their votes.....but is ignored by liberal judges...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" was in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson. It's NOT in the Constitution.

“If the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute, but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd,” Scalia said."

And he's right.

Incorrect.

It 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.”

FindLaw Cases and Codes

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Mojo2]

Wait, WHAT religion? Because we all know one is good and the others are...meh

No, all but one is good.

The other is a threat to non-Muslim freedom.

 

[Kosh]

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" was in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson. It's NOT in the Constitution.

“If the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute, but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd,” Scalia said."

And he's right.

So you believe we should NOT have an official policy to separate church and state?

The far left does not believe in tis as they want government in the business of "Marriage".

And thus once again show s the hypocrisy of the far left when they use terms they do not understand.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'“You remove God and you remove religion,” he said, “and you remove the state from encouraging religious belief and you get more secularism, you get more problems, you get more crime, you get all, whatever, fill in the blank out there.”

“End result,” Hice said, “you get bigger government.”'

This fails as a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that Establishment Clause jurisprudence results in 'more crime' or 'bigger government,' whatever that's supposed to mean.

Too many on the right exhibit this sort of ignorance and stupidity.