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

[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.

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".

It is relevant as your statement of an unofficial state religion has been a form of civil Christianity is inaccurate as I have explained. The fact that a majority of Americans just happened to have a common belief in Christiamity, does not merit a state of civil Christianity. Your statement is inaccurate, any more than there had been a majority who practice Jewish customs would imply a state of Judaism. It simply is not a valid point Jake, sorry if you want to try and theorize otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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".

It is relevant as your statement of an unofficial state religion has been a form of civil Christianity is inaccurate as I have explained. The fact that a majority of Americans just happened to have a common belief in Christiamity, does not merit a state of civil Christianity. Your statement is inaccurate, any more than there had been a majority who practice Jewish customs would imply a state of Judaism. It simply is not a valid point Jake, sorry if you want to try and theorize otherwise.

You have confirmed my accuracy by your inaccuracy, as is your false equivalency with a surmised Jewish majority. Your opinion cannot be justified in the histories and text books in our high schools and colleges that recognize the role of white Protestant mainstream and evangelical denominations in shaping our culture since the beginnings of the 2nd Great Awakening.

Our unofficial civil religion has been, but is no longer, a white Protestant Christianity.

This is a very good thing that gives our inhabitants protection "of" and "from" state-sponsored religion.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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".

It is relevant as your statement of an unofficial state religion has been a form of civil Christianity is inaccurate as I have explained. The fact that a majority of Americans just happened to have a common belief in Christiamity, does not merit a state of civil Christianity. Your statement is inaccurate, any more than there had been a majority who practice Jewish customs would imply a state of Judaism. It simply is not a valid point Jake, sorry if you want to try and theorize otherwise.

You have confirmed my accuracy by your inaccuracy, as is your false equivalency with a surmised Jewish majority. Your opinion cannot be justified in the histories and text books in our high schools and colleges that recognize the role of white Protestant mainstream and evangelical denominations in shaping our culture since the beginnings of the 2nd Great Awakening.

Our unofficial civil religion has been, but is no longer, a white Protestant Christianity.

This is a very good thing that gives our inhabitants protection "of" and "from" state-sponsored religion.

Produce a link where our nation's government confirms your view and I will concede you are correct, rather than stretch a point that is simply inaccurate.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

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.

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

-The Constitution is a RESTRICTIVE document. It's purpose is to LIMIT government. It's why if you read the 2nd amendment for example you'll see the language "shall not be infringed". In other words: the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It doesn't state that you-or anybody else has that right. It does however state that that right "shall not be infringed"-meaning the government doesn't have that ability.

-This was done because if the bill of rights was truly a list of your rights-it would be impossible to include everything. That's why instead of being a document that grants power to the people-it's a document that instead restricts the power of government.

-The Constitution is very specific on what the powers of the government are on a federal level (and obviously under the 10th anything not expressed in the Constitution falls to the state level). If you could point out ANYWHERE in the Constitution that the federal government has the ability to establish an official state religion of the country-I'd love to see it. Because it doesn't exist. Therefore your argument would have to be on the state level (and that's your best case scenario for an argument).


-I suggest you read the Federalist Papers written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (to a small extent), if you wish to really understand the function and purpose of the Constitution more. If you have done so all ready-go and re-read them.

 

[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.

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

-The Constitution is a RESTRICTIVE document. It's purpose is to LIMIT government. It's why if you read the 2nd amendment for example you'll see the language "shall not be infringed". In other words: the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It doesn't state that you-or anybody else has that right. It does however state that that right "shall not be infringed"-meaning the government doesn't have that ability.

-This was done because if the bill of rights was truly a list of your rights-it would be impossible to include everything. That's why instead of being a document that grants power to the people-it's a document that instead restricts the power of government.

-The Constitution is very specific on what the powers of the government are on a federal level (and obviously under the 10th anything not expressed in the Constitution falls to the state level). If you could point out ANYWHERE in the Constitution that the federal government has the ability to establish an official state religion of the country-I'd love to see it. Because it doesn't exist. Therefore your argument would have to be on the state level (and that's your best case scenario for an argument).


-I suggest you read the Federalist Papers written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (to a small extent), if you wish to really understand the function and purpose of the Constitution more. If you have done so all ready-go and re-read them.

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

 

[Antares]

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.

"No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens because they do, or do not believe in religion. The state protects normal religious activities", and continues with the statement that"nobody can make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt social order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state."

Religion in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The State controls the Church, sorry.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

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.

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

-The Constitution is a RESTRICTIVE document. It's purpose is to LIMIT government. It's why if you read the 2nd amendment for example you'll see the language "shall not be infringed". In other words: the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It doesn't state that you-or anybody else has that right. It does however state that that right "shall not be infringed"-meaning the government doesn't have that ability.

-This was done because if the bill of rights was truly a list of your rights-it would be impossible to include everything. That's why instead of being a document that grants power to the people-it's a document that instead restricts the power of government.

-The Constitution is very specific on what the powers of the government are on a federal level (and obviously under the 10th anything not expressed in the Constitution falls to the state level). If you could point out ANYWHERE in the Constitution that the federal government has the ability to establish an official state religion of the country-I'd love to see it. Because it doesn't exist. Therefore your argument would have to be on the state level (and that's your best case scenario for an argument).


-I suggest you read the Federalist Papers written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (to a small extent), if you wish to really understand the function and purpose of the Constitution more. If you have done so all ready-go and re-read them.

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

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

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

 

[Antares]

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

-The Constitution is a RESTRICTIVE document. It's purpose is to LIMIT government. It's why if you read the 2nd amendment for example you'll see the language "shall not be infringed". In other words: the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It doesn't state that you-or anybody else has that right. It does however state that that right "shall not be infringed"-meaning the government doesn't have that ability.

-This was done because if the bill of rights was truly a list of your rights-it would be impossible to include everything. That's why instead of being a document that grants power to the people-it's a document that instead restricts the power of government.

-The Constitution is very specific on what the powers of the government are on a federal level (and obviously under the 10th anything not expressed in the Constitution falls to the state level). If you could point out ANYWHERE in the Constitution that the federal government has the ability to establish an official state religion of the country-I'd love to see it. Because it doesn't exist. Therefore your argument would have to be on the state level (and that's your best case scenario for an argument).


-I suggest you read the Federalist Papers written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (to a small extent), if you wish to really understand the function and purpose of the Constitution more. If you have done so all ready-go and re-read them.

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

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

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

Too funny, they came here because they weren't ALLOWED to worship as they pleased BECAUSE their "GOV" MADE them worship the way it decreed.

The 1st amendment was written to pr0tect them from that EVER happening again.

It was written to ENSURE that "right" not someone else's "right" NOT worship, I don't care how you stand it on it's head you are arguing it backwards.

Period.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Sorry....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far righty reactionaries' fumbling and bumbling inability to understand the 1st Amendment historically from 1789 until today amuses me.

They can boo and hoo, and nothing will change for them the way they want.

It is what it is.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

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

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

Too funny, they came here because they weren't ALLOWED to worship as they pleased BECAUSE their "GOV" MADE them worship the way it decreed.

The 1st amendment was written to pr0tect them from that EVER happening again.

It was written to ENSURE that "right" not someone else's "right" NOT worship, I don't care how you stand it on it's head you are arguing it backwards.

Period.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Sorry....

For the 3rd time:

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

 

[FA_Q2]

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

-The Constitution is a RESTRICTIVE document. It's purpose is to LIMIT government. It's why if you read the 2nd amendment for example you'll see the language "shall not be infringed". In other words: the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear arms. It doesn't state that you-or anybody else has that right. It does however state that that right "shall not be infringed"-meaning the government doesn't have that ability.

-This was done because if the bill of rights was truly a list of your rights-it would be impossible to include everything. That's why instead of being a document that grants power to the people-it's a document that instead restricts the power of government.

-The Constitution is very specific on what the powers of the government are on a federal level (and obviously under the 10th anything not expressed in the Constitution falls to the state level). If you could point out ANYWHERE in the Constitution that the federal government has the ability to establish an official state religion of the country-I'd love to see it. Because it doesn't exist. Therefore your argument would have to be on the state level (and that's your best case scenario for an argument).


-I suggest you read the Federalist Papers written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (to a small extent), if you wish to really understand the function and purpose of the Constitution more. If you have done so all ready-go and re-read them.

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

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

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

Your argument is completely false considering that the federal government is not restricting anything at all in the counter argument but YOU are demanding that the government has the right to restrict others rights. You say the federal government would be restricting peoples right ‘from’ religion. The question then is how?

The answer, of course, is they are not. No one here is talking about federal actions at all. Instead they are talking about the actions of the PEOPLE, who you demand should be restricted (ie their freedoms removed) to protect your rights. The entire argument is completely backwards. There is no federal authority to restrict your right to freedom from religion BUT there is ALSO no federal authority to restrict another’s right to worship. That is a protected right in the constitution. HOWEVER – you are demanding that they have their right infringed upon so that you don’t have to be exposed.

What authority does the government have to INFRINGE on their rights? They don’t and as such, you are going to have to deal with the fact that you WILL be exposed to religion unless you simply decide not to deal with other people.

There is no difference between your argument and me demanding that all brunette people not be allowed into public spaces because it infringed on my right to not see brunette people. Does that makes sense? No, of course not but the logic is IDENTICAL.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The problem with arguing about an unofficial religion is that it really doesn't exist outside of the minds of whackadoodle conspiracy nuts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The stupid person is the idiot that keeps posting the Jefferson quote and ignoring half of what he said.

Since you are too stupid to get the reference, that is you.

 

[Antares]

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.

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

I am not arguing that there is no wall or that there shouldn't be one. I am making the point that the Original intent of the protection to worship has been turned completely around to mean that ANY expression of faith in public or on public land has been demonized and misconstrued to mean that the Gov is "establishing" a "religion".

 

[JamesInFlorida]

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.

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

-I'm not a leftist by any means (for the record I think Obama is one of the worst presidents in history), but I'm a strong believer in civil rights/liberties.

-I'll address your post part by part (of where I disagree):

"Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something"

You CAN have the freedom from a negative. You CAN have the freedom NOT to do something. See the 5th Amendment.

"Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well."

As a practicing Catholic-I assure you that I worship-don't assume, we both know what makes you. I also don't support others being forced not to worship either. For example I think that people should be able to:

-Pray in schools (as long as the students aren't required to participate, and tax dollars aren't paying for it).

My own issue is forcing individuals to support religious views that they don't necessarily believe in. If you have tax dollars going towards supporting these religious views (for example having religious symbols on public private)-than those individuals are being forced to pay for that religious symbol, and thus being forced to support (financially) those religious beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Everything anyone has posted in this thread contradicts your point. Have you noticed that even the people who are arguing that the 1st Amendment prohibits public displays of religion disagree with you about what separation of church and state actually entails?

 

[Antares]

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

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

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

Too funny, they came here because they weren't ALLOWED to worship as they pleased BECAUSE their "GOV" MADE them worship the way it decreed.

The 1st amendment was written to pr0tect them from that EVER happening again.

It was written to ENSURE that "right" not someone else's "right" NOT worship, I don't care how you stand it on it's head you are arguing it backwards.

Period.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Sorry....

For the 3rd time:

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

For the FIRST time have you ever even read the First Amendment?

Hamilton....

Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[Antares]

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.

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

-I'm not a leftist by any means (for the record I think Obama is one of the worst presidents in history), but I'm a strong believer in civil rights/liberties.

-I'll address your post part by part (of where I disagree):

"Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something"

You CAN have the freedom from a negative. You CAN have the freedom NOT to do something. See the 5th Amendment.

"Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well."

As a practicing Catholic-I assure you that I worship-don't assume, we both know what makes you. I also don't support others being forced not to worship either. For example I think that people should be able to:

-Pray in schools (as long as the students aren't required to participate, and tax dollars aren't paying for it).

My own issue is forcing individuals to support religious views that they don't necessarily believe in. If you have tax dollars going towards supporting these religious views (for example having religious symbols on public private)-than those individuals are being forced to pay for that religious symbol, and thus being forced to support (financially) those religious beliefs.

Why don't you clearly state what you THINK my position is?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

That's your rebuttal? Obviously you need to take reading comprehension classes.

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

While I agree that the 1st wasn't intended to do so, this doesn't mean that the government has the authority to impose religion on it's citizens.

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

If you cannot do so-than the government doesn't have that power. You'd only be arguing over the semantics of whether it was the 1st amendment, or the Constitution as a whole.

Your argument is completely false considering that the federal government is not restricting anything at all in the counter argument but YOU are demanding that the government has the right to restrict others rights. You say the federal government would be restricting peoples right ‘from’ religion. The question then is how?

The answer, of course, is they are not. No one here is talking about federal actions at all. Instead they are talking about the actions of the PEOPLE, who you demand should be restricted (ie their freedoms removed) to protect your rights. The entire argument is completely backwards. There is no federal authority to restrict your right to freedom from religion BUT there is ALSO no federal authority to restrict another’s right to worship. That is a protected right in the constitution. HOWEVER – you are demanding that they have their right infringed upon so that you don’t have to be exposed.

What authority does the government have to INFRINGE on their rights? They don’t and as such, you are going to have to deal with the fact that you WILL be exposed to religion unless you simply decide not to deal with other people.

There is no difference between your argument and me demanding that all brunette people not be allowed into public spaces because it infringed on my right to not see brunette people. Does that makes sense? No, of course not but the logic is IDENTICAL.

I have no problems with religion, as stated in a previous post I'm Catholic (and happen to be VERY religious).

I have no problems with people expressing their religious beliefs-even on public land. You can stand outside of the local library and preach your religion all you want-doesn't bother me one bit, and I think you have the right to do that.

The only issue I have (as stated above) is when the government forces individuals to financially support (taxes) religion.

I have no idea why your post addressed so many things that I neither implied, or stated. I'm assuming (ironically), that you just assumed what I meant/stand for. Filling in the blanks for yourself. Making assumptions is foolish.