If the U.S. has no separation of church and state, what is the state religion?

[thereisnospoon]

If there is no separation between a government and a religion, of course it means there would be a government established religion. That's what no separation means, you idiot.

Now you are arguing just to argue.
Your point is nonsense. And so are you.
Please return to the hole beneath the rock from under which you crawled.

I see, where did the phrase " wall of separation" come from?

Jake doesn't know so he will never respond, besides every time he engages me he gets his ass kicked.

I believe it was a letter Th. Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists somewhere in New England?

 

[FA_Q2]

Not at all. I simply corrected whoever said the federal gov't forbids them from praying. It is the location or venue, not the prayer itself that is the issue.

That there are exceptions to this does not make what I posted a lie. It simply means there are exceptions.

Yes, you said that they only prohibit it in large groups and on land funded by taxpayers, you were wrong. Try admitting it, you might come across as intelligent. I doubt it, but you will at least be honest.

Try admitting that I was right. Because that is exactly the reason given by every legal action to stop organized prayer in schools, at public school football games ect ect.

The fact that there are exceptions does not change that.

No, actually it is not. The legal actions have always centered on representatives of official government functions. It never has anything to do with government land or size of the group. With that interpretation a teacher could lead a Christian prayer on a school outing to a local business. They can’t though because it is not the location that matters but whether or not the individual is representing an official government position at the time. This entire time you have been completely incorrect and stamping your food demanding that you are right. It is childish.

 

[FA_Q2]

Even better than that, every student in every public school can pray. They can't have an assembly or group event to do it. But God hears all prayers, whether it is a silent one in a moment of quiet, or a loud boisterous attempt to display false piety. The problem is, some are not satisfied with silent prayers said by someone of faith. They want to make a big show of it.

If it so wrong then why does God answer their prayers?

You don’t understand.

Children are allowed to pray in public schools – they always have; just not at the behest of the state, of which the school is part.

According to Christian dogma prayers are ‘heard’ by the Christian deity whether manifested silently or vocally. Consequently, to disallow the state mandating students in a public school to make a collective, vocal demonstration of faith (prayer) violates no tenet of Christian dogma, and no religious liberty is lost.

Incorrect. As has been stated many times here – YOU are not the arbiter or personal faith. The SCOTUS is not the arbiter either nor is ANY government function. That would violate that wall that you are so fond of. Each individual is the arbiter of what his or her faith entails, period.


The arrogance of people here to demand that THEY define others faith is just staggering.

 

[FA_Q2]

It did not escape me at all. I was the one who posted the correct information. You were the one who claimed you corrected me by adding "...where ever they want.". When, in fact, that is not true.

I said "where ever they want", in regards to public property. I'm a Conservative. I respect private property rights. The very idea that I would assume I have the right to pray on your front lawn is foreign to me.

Funny thing, the Supreme Court has said that, unless he fences off his front lawn, and locks the gate, I actually have a right to walk onto his property as part of my religion. Weird, isn't it?

What case was that? I think that would be an interesting read.

 

[Coyote]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

Capitalism.

 

[FA_Q2]

Now you are arguing just to argue.
Your point is nonsense. And so are you.
Please return to the hole beneath the rock from under which you crawled.

I see, where did the phrase " wall of separation" come from?

Jake doesn't know so he will never respond, besides every time he engages me he gets his ass kicked.

I believe it was a letter Th. Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists somewhere in New England?

Yes it was and the question has been answered in this very thread. I think that Jake even posted a link to it earlier so the poster stating that Jake is unaware of its origin is not really on the ball there.


IOW, Antares, just cut to the chase. The baiting is just leaving the rest of us on the edge of our seats waiting for the actual point here

 

[The T]

Now you are arguing just to argue.
Your point is nonsense. And so are you.
Please return to the hole beneath the rock from under which you crawled.

I see, where did the phrase " wall of separation" come from?

Jake doesn't know so he will never respond, besides every time he engages me he gets his ass kicked.

I believe it was a letter Th. Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists somewhere in New England?

Yep. The Danbury Baptists...1802

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter

 

[amrchaos]

The state religion is Satanism with a little Scientology thrown in for respectability!

Brainwashed space zombie demons rule us! Alf is president for life and afterwards!

Yep, and you thought it was the christian fundies you had to fear!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said "where ever they want", in regards to public property. I'm a Conservative. I respect private property rights. The very idea that I would assume I have the right to pray on your front lawn is foreign to me.

Funny thing, the Supreme Court has said that, unless he fences off his front lawn, and locks the gate, I actually have a right to walk onto his property as part of my religion. Weird, isn't it?

What case was that? I think that would be an interesting read.

The most recent one I am aware of is Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton. There are numerous others where various local governments have responded to JWs knocking on doors by trying to make it illegal, but failed. People can act, as individuals, to keep them out, but the front door is, essentially, an open invitation to anyone who can get to it without going through a locked gate.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I am not ignorant at all. I see that the US Constitution stated something that needed clarification, so they went to the writings of the man who wrote the amendment. They did this to gain insight into his intent.

And thus the SCOTUS handed down a ruling that increased the freedoms of all religions.

And I don't stow anything in my sphincter or take directions from anyone like you. But the fact that you are thinking about my sphincter speaks volumes.

There are two errors in your post.

Jefferson was in France during the time the Constitution was written.

The Supreme Court Ruling removing prayer from public forums does NOT equate a freedom of all religions, it is to bring satisfaction to the minority who follows no religious beliefs. How does a removal of any and all religious prayer equate to religious freedom? That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

 

[Antares]

Now you are arguing just to argue.
Your point is nonsense. And so are you.
Please return to the hole beneath the rock from under which you crawled.

I see, where did the phrase " wall of separation" come from?

Jake doesn't know so he will never respond, besides every time he engages me he gets his ass kicked.

I believe it was a letter Th. Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists somewhere in New England?

Yup, in response to a letter they wrote to him.

 

[Antares]

I see, where did the phrase " wall of separation" come from?

Jake doesn't know so he will never respond, besides every time he engages me he gets his ass kicked.

I believe it was a letter Th. Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists somewhere in New England?

Yes it was and the question has been answered in this very thread. I think that Jake even posted a link to it earlier so the poster stating that Jake is unaware of its origin is not really on the ball there.


IOW, Antares, just cut to the chase. The baiting is just leaving the rest of us on the edge of our seats waiting for the actual point here

The chase is this, the left lifted the phrase out of context and has used it to beat their opponents into submission.

They took it and turned it 180 degrees out of phase to prove THEIR side of the argument. ...and in succeeding generations this lie has come to be accepted.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

On whether or not a single religion should be represented in gov't run operations, while all others are ignored.

And WHAT religion is that? Is it the fact that the Founders recognized religion in the first place?

When I was in elementary school, there was a prayer said every morning. It certainly was not Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu.

A moment of silence to allow those who follow a particular faith to pray, or a vocal expression of prayer? There's a HUGE difference, as a moment of silence to the respect of others who wish to pray is NOT conducive towards only one particular belief. In certainly is not even remotely CLOSE to "establishment" of religion.

 

[editec]

If the U.S. has no separation of church and state, what is the state religion?

MAMMON​

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Really? So if someone wanted to hold religious services on my 125 acres, the US Constitution gives them that right?

I think you are sadly mistaken, yet again. I could shoot them for trespassing, if I so chose.

Oh, and just as an FYI, a bit over 60% of the US is private property. So there are plenty of places you can be denied.

There are laws against trespassing that have nothing to do with prayer.
That strawman has been shredded already re sacrifice.

Not a strawman at all. You and he maintain that you have a constitutional right to worship "...where ever they want". I even asked if that is what you meant.

Obviously, they cannot worship where ever they want. Since the US is a bit over 60% privately owned property, you could potentially be denied access to over half of the country.

Using the same example that you presented with respect to private property. Does the constitution allow for a freedom of assembly to hold a protest on your "private" property? Are we somehow disallowing for their Constitutional rights?

Tell me the difference between the Constitutional rights regarding the freedom of assembly and the freedom of religion in your example.

 

[Old Rocks]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

Mammon.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The unofficial state religion has been a form of civil Christianity, which for a hundred and fifty years or more has been a compound of white mainstream protestant and evangelical values.

That has been failing the last two decades as a result of the increasingly secularism of society.

We won't, as a nation, go back to what was the unofficial state religion. The millennial and X and Y generations will not permit such a regressive cultural move.

Wanna bet? Young people are actually reconnecting with their Christianity.
That's a fact.

The problem with JakeStarkey's statement is that we have NEVER had an establishment of religion in this country, so there is no "going back" argument.

The problem with many who use the "separation" argument is they are making assumptions without knowing what the intended definition to establishment is. This reminds me of a game where everyone is given a word, they each write a definition to what they want that word to mean, then each definition is read aloud with the correct definition read among them as they make their best guess towards it's proper meaning. That's the problem we have here. Liberals and atheists pulls the words "Separation of Church and State" remark from a letter because it fits into their DEFINITION how the First Amendment is to be interpreted, while every rebuttal falls in line with that one skewed meaning. Yet not one of them looks to how the word "establishment" was to be defined as, by those who actually debated and agreed upon its interpretation.

 

[Antares]

I get that you are angry because your religion no longer holds as much power.

I get that you are angry that the gov't is a secular power.

I get that you are angry that 67% of the population agrees with the SCOTUS.

I get that you are frustrated by your powerlessness.

I also get that anyone in this country can worship whatever faith they want.

I also get that anyone in this country can worship whatever faith they want where ever they want.

Fixed it for you.

No, you did not fix it. You changed it from accurate to wrong.

In your opinion of course....however you are indeed incorrect....just because the Court decided it was ok to prohibit the free exercise of Religion in no way makes it right, sorry.

 

[Antares]

Really? So you and he both maintain that people in this country are allowed to worship "...where ever they want"?

According to the First Amendment, yes.

Really? So if someone wanted to hold religious services on my 125 acres, the US Constitution gives them that right?

I think you are sadly mistaken, yet again. I could shoot them for trespassing, if I so chose.

Oh, and just as an FYI, a bit over 60% of the US is private property. So there are plenty of places you can be denied.

Do you really think a logical absurdity is a good debate tool?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You may dismiss as many posters here as you wish. It doesn't change the ruling made by the SCOTUS.

And it doesn't mean that SCOTUS got it correct either, does it? They have been wrong on many things starting with Maubury V Madison...
Take it from there. YOUR belief that 9 Tyrants in black robes have the final sayso is scary, and by the way? THEY are NOT the last say in ANY matter.

Got it?

The “but the Supreme Court sometimes gets it ‘wrong’” argument fails as it demonstrates the ignorance of many on the right concerning the process of judicial review.

In fact, that the Court has erred in the past is confirmation that the process works, where the Court is able to address its errors and make corrections accordingly.

In overturning Bowers, for example, the Lawrence Court explained the role played by stare decisis and established precedent:

The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))).

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition, therefore, is to take into account and accommodate the fallibility inherent in all humans, and in all institutions that humans create.

For example, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was the law of the land until it was overturned by the Brown Court. As with Bowers, the holding in Plessy “has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on [Plessy] of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. [Plessy] itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.”

For the last 65 years McCollum v. Board of Education has been the law of the land, it has been subjected to exhaustive judicial review by the courts and by the people via the political process. And unlike Plessey and Bowers, McCollum recognizes “a constitutional liberty interest, [where an] individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. [Casey] 505 U.S., at 855—856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”).”

McCollum and its progeny remain the valid law of the land concerning the First Amendment and the meaning of the Establishment Clause, where the Framers mandated a separation of church and state, not because the Supreme Court ‘says so,’ but because the holding has withstood decades of judicial review and analysis determining its conclusion an accurate review of the relevant documents and evidence, and where the holding is consistent with protecting a constitutional liberty interest.

.... and we can have a judicial majority in the United States Supreme Court look into the "Separation of Church and State" argument, take the time to render its decision and later overturn it.