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

[Antares]

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.

Nice try, but no dice.

How convenient for you....you get to decide what another actually meant so as to attempt to discredit what he/she said.....very nice, stupid , but very convenient for you.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

It it's so wrong then why does God answer their prayers?

Does he?

Perhaps a reminder of scripture is in order?

"“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward."

Wow, I guess Jesus was in trouble when he took time to pray and bless the loaves and fishes before the 5000.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Is Christmas a Federal Holiday?

Is Obamacare a tax?

Nope.. Justice Roberts got it wrong.
Obamacare is commerce.
I don't give a shit what Roberts believes. He's wrong.
He caved to political pressure. Period.

Actually there is reasoning behind Justice Robert's decision. According to the Constitution's Origination Clause "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." H.R. 3590 originated in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Act of 2009", when it reached the senate the bill was stripped to become H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. So, if the ACA does not implode first, expect to find this case show up before the justices. I don't see any justices turning their back on a clear specific procedural ruling outlined in our own Constutution. However, that's for another thread to discuss, not here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem with Shakles statement is that he refuses to acknowledge the truth that our "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."

And, nope, that portion of our history is over, to which we will never return.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

OK, Antares concedes I was in tune with the document.

No, the document is quite clear in that it illuminates what Jefferson said was accurate about the 1st Amendment.

 

[Antares]

Poor Jake, so desperate for relevance.....there NEVER was an established religion.....and if you are agreeing that Jefferson's statement cements the original intent of the Constitution then you are for the first time indeed correct about something.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The problem with Shakles statement is that he refuses to acknowledge the truth that our "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."

And, nope, that portion of our history is over, to which we will never return.

We never had an establishment of religion Jake, hate to pull all the air out of your sails, but you first need to be able to define what the word "establishment" refers to. It has been very clearly defined historically, as well as the intended views of our Founders as government public record during the debate of drafting the First Amendment. I can almost guarantee you are unable to provide the definition inferred, when they finally settled on the word "establishment".

 

[Antares]

The problem with Shakles statement is that he refuses to acknowledge the truth that our "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."

And, nope, that portion of our history is over, to which we will never return.

We never had an establishment of religion Jake, hate to pull all the air out of your sails, but you first need to be able to define what the word "establishment" refers to. It has been very clearly defined historically, as well as the intended views of our Founders as government public record during the debate of drafting the First Amendment. I can almost guarantee you are unable to provide the definition inferred, when they finally settled on the word "establishment".

It's sad how those on the Left refuse to educate themselves about such a great document
.
The first amendment was written to protect the BELIEVER and not the unbeliever, sorry kids that's a fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And shakles and Antares don't get that our unofficial civil religion was what I demonstrated above.

That is their problem.

The 1st, according to the court rulings, apparently protects both believer and non-believer.

That a citizen disagrees is fine but means nothing at all re: interpretation of the law.

 

[Redfish]

And shakles and Antares don't get that our unofficial civil religion was what I demonstrated above.

That is their problem.

The 1st, according to the court rulings, apparently protects both believer and non-believer.

That a citizen disagrees is fine but means nothing at all re: interpretation of the law.

you are correct to a point. Our country was founded on judeo/chrisitin principles and beliefs. Our founding documents are filled with references to the creator and God. Our money says "In God we trust". The founders were religious people but they recognized that those who choose other beliefs should have the freedom to practice their beliefs.

Today we seem to be in a mode of prosecuting the majority beliefs and promoting the minority beliefs.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

No, it doesn't. Fallacy fail. Thread fail.
/end

Explain how it's a fallacy.

You can not because it is not.

BTW, who's the bimbo with the really bad boob job in your avatar?

Her name is September Carrino.

They are real and they are spectacular.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

No, it doesn't. Fallacy fail. Thread fail.
/end

Explain how it's a fallacy.

You can not because it is not.

That's YOUR opinion...
It is not based in fact.

The first amendment is a fact, not an opinion.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Kids arrested for carrying a Bible to school. Christians prohibited from school grounds after school while crazy clubs promoting witchcraft have a wide acceptance. Prohibition of the Manger Scene on public property during Christmas. The court order that a Korean War Memorial in San Diego be demolished because it contains a 40 ft Cross. Small towns fearful of a ACLU law suit for a Christmas tree on public property. Prayer or the mention of a Christian God or symbols of Christianity prohibited in American public schools.

People forced to bake cakes against their will. Employers forced to cover medical procedures that violate their conscience.
This administration has done more to destroy the balance that has been crafted over decades than anything else.

When I read that judge's decsion the gay couple v bakery case I wanted to throw up.
That is an outrageous miscarriage of justice. No doubt the owner of the bakery wants to appeal, but that costs money. And the attorney for these militant gay heterosexual bashing bastards know this.
If owned that bakery I would tell that gay couple that they may have won the battle b ut lost the war because I don't give a shit what that judge said. "You won the cake. But you'll get it when it gets done. When that is, I have no idea. I am going on vacation"....

No, you didn't.

The decision in a legal case that has no bearing on your life did not make you feel like you were going to vomit.

Don't give us that cliche`d hyperbole.

 

[Antares]

And shakles and Antares don't get that our unofficial civil religion was what I demonstrated above.

That is their problem.

The 1st, according to the court rulings, apparently protects both believer and non-believer.

That a citizen disagrees is fine but means nothing at all re: interpretation of the law.

Oh Jakey you silly

The First Amendment in no way was EVER intended to guarantee anyone freedom from religion, sorry.

Just because you worship at the feet of the Court doesn't make their "interpretation" correct.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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.

what really

the first amendment says

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

it also says

-or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-

This doesn't contradict my point.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

In my school, we stood and recited the Lords Prayer in unison. There was some differences between the Catholic and Protestant versions, but the Protestants would wait a couple of seconds for Catholics to catch up.
THEN we placed out hands over out hearts (unless we were in our Scout uniforms) and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
One must consider the times... As I entered first grade the September after June 14th 1954 when the words "under God" were added to the Pledge.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

China does not have a state religion, nor do they have separation of church and state. I am sure that little detail won't change the idiots opinion because he already knows all the answers, but it is a fun fact nonetheless.

China does have separation of church and state, you idiot.

There's no official religion that makes decisions for the Chinese government.

What a stupid argument you were trying to make.

No they do not, they have state approved churches, but no official religion.

Having state approved churches in China means those religions are legally allowed to exist. That doesn't mean the state and those churches are joined together. Those religions are not making decisions for the Chinese government.

Man, you are just stupid.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

No it isn't. The wall of separation between church and state is the entire fucking clause, not just the part that turns you into an incompetent boob. If the state makes laws that restrict the practice of religion that wall of separation is breached. That is why the courts have repeatedly ruled that the government has no authority to decide what is, and is not, a religion. They have to treat all religions equally, even if it involves sacrificing animals to demons.

Nothing you wrote contradicts my point.

Are you arguing with yourself?

Was your point that you don't read?

Maybe you can take a stab at explaining exactly how what you wrote here contradicts my point.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And shakles and Antares don't get that our unofficial civil religion was what I demonstrated above.

That is their problem.

The 1st, according to the court rulings, apparently protects both believer and non-believer.

That a citizen disagrees is fine but means nothing at all re: interpretation of the law.

The problem with your statement is the reference of a time in our country when the majority of those believers WERE Christian over any other faith, not taken to account any minority groups (such as Jews) who didn't share in their belief but also enjoyed the ability to practice their own faith without fear or jealousy of those who happen to be Christian. Just because a majority happen to share a common faith does not in any way endorse a state religion, it only is a means of recognizing the presence of the majority in accordance with their chosen faith. I'm sure if we had an overwhelming majority who just so happen to practice Jewish customs, you'd accuse this nation of endorsing a state religion of Judaism. That has nothing to do with a nation establishing a particular faith over another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And shakles and Antares don't get that our unofficial civil religion was what I demonstrated above.

That is their problem.

The 1st, according to the court rulings, apparently protects both believer and non-believer.

That a citizen disagrees is fine but means nothing at all re: interpretation of the law.

The problem with your statement is the reference of a time in our country when the majority of those believers WERE Christian over any other faith, not taken to account any minority groups (such as Jews) who didn't share in their belief but also enjoyed the ability to practice their own faith without fear or jealousy of those who happen to be Christian. Just because a majority happen to share a common faith does not in any way endorse a state religion, it only is a means of recognizing the presence of the majority in accordance with their chosen faith. I'm sure if we had an overwhelming majority who just so happen to practice Jewish customs, you'd accuse this nation of endorsing a state religion of Judaism. That has nothing to do with a nation establishing a particular faith over another.

Your comment is irrelevant because we are discussing what is not what might be.

And you falsify my position if you suggest that I think our government is endorsing a state religion of Christianity, whether unofficially or officially..

It is not, and I approve that approach.

And I certainly approve the principle of protecting "of" and "from".