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

[Antares]

Antares, your lack of creditability on the Board makes such a request by you laughable.

No, son, it is not your right or role to decide what harms other people on this matter.

You can bitch all you want, and we can laugh at you.

Meaning YOU don't feel the need to prove ANYTHING you say, got it.

Jizz boy.

Uh -- "jizz boy"? Rooly?

You can't "prove" an opinion, ya unrooly twit.

LMAO....I am ROO I've never hidden it kid. Just look at my profile...you and Jake are gay boys....I am ok with that....

But see you BOTH are still required to prove ANYTHING you say.

Capiche?

 

[Antares]

Jizzboy, you AND Jake.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

-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.

Then we would agree.

I find this rather hilarious because I think that the three of us (Antares, you and I) all believe almost the exact same thing but are debating it from 2 entirely different angles. Now that I re-read your post to Antares, I don’t see anywhere you actually disagree with his statements in all honesty. I don’t think anyone here is stating that the government should finance (through taxpayers) religious symbolism but the vast majority of the cases and instances argued against here is when the private citizen is denied because of a public location or publically owned assets. I find this as wrong.

That would depend upon the specifics of a given situation.

As the Court has observed over the decades, it was not the intent of the Framers to remove all religion from government, as there are times when religious expression through government is appropriate and times when it is not.

As a very general rule, religious expression through government passes Constitutional muster when such expressions are motivated primarily by a secular interest, when government seeks to neither advance nor discourage religious expression, and when there is no excessive government entanglement with religion and its expression.

“In god we trust’ on currency would be an example of allowed religious expression by government, a public school teacher leading students a Christian prayer is an example of what would not be allowed.

Moreover, the private citizen is not ‘denied’ because a public location or publicly owned asset is found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause, as the citizen retains his full ability to engage in religious expression, nor is the state interfering with the citizen’s right to engage in his right to comprehensive religious expression.

For example, there is no tenet of Christian doctrine or dogma requiring a nativity scene be placed at a town’s city hall, and to disallow such a display in accordance with Establishment Clause jurisprudence manifests no ‘violation’ of religious expression for that reason.

It’s therefore incumbent upon citizens to understand the case law in this regard, as there are situations where nativity displays on government property are allowed – it is simply a matter of understanding how to configure such a display that comports with the Constitution.

In matters of religion I have considered that it's free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government.
-- Thomas Jefferson March 4, 1805

No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the Constitution
-- Thomas Jefferson 1798 wrote at the occasion of the Kentucky Resolution

 

[Pogo]

Meaning YOU don't feel the need to prove ANYTHING you say, got it.

Jizz boy.

Uh -- "jizz boy"? Rooly?

You can't "prove" an opinion, ya unrooly twit.

LMAO....I am ROO I've never hidden it kid. Just look at my profile...you and Jake are gay boys....I am ok with that....

But see you BOTH are still required to prove ANYTHING you say.

Capiche?

I didn't say you "hid" it, did I? I'm just calling attention to it so that you may enjoy the full roodicule you deserve. It's gotta be embarrassing if it made you change your whole name. And since I was here to see that road to Roo-in, I get why you'd need a fresh start.

Frankly this one's going even worse, what with "jizz boys" and "gay boys"...

Anyway, to rooiterate, you don't "prove" or "disprove" opinions. They don't work that way. It would be rooly stoopid to think that.

Don't you think?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Reply to your point B...
It doesn't. However, you nor anyone else may use your first amendment rights to squash the first amendment rights of others. In short, freedom FROM religion does not exist.
This entire premise is based on the liberal notion of 'offense'. Libs believe there is this unwritten 'right to not be offended'...
For example, you do not have the right to walk by someone's home and compel them "take down that cross from your home. It offends my right to be free of religion".
Another example.. The local Burger King here has on the wall, a framed display of the Ten Commandments. You do not have the right to compel the owner to remove the display because it "offends" you...You only recourse as an agnostic or atheist, is to make another fast food choice.
And finally, you do not possess the right to compel a tv station to stop broadcasting Sunday Morning religious programming because it "offends you"....You have the right to choose other things to watch.
I get pretty sick and tired of the left wing perpetually offended running to the nearest courthouse to file piles of lawsuits just because they have thin skin.
You libs are real good at paying ip service to the concept of 'live and let live'...So as long as everyone obeys your direction and lives within the bounds of your point of view.

You must live in a Biizarro comic book where fantasies like this happen...

What is it called? "Strawman Monthly"?

Delivered to his doorstep in beautiful downtown Fallacy Central.

 

[Antares]

Uh -- "jizz boy"? Rooly?

You can't "prove" an opinion, ya unrooly twit.

LMAO....I am ROO I've never hidden it kid. Just look at my profile...you and Jake are gay boys....I am ok with that....

But see you BOTH are still required to prove ANYTHING you say.

Capiche?

I didn't say you "hid" it, did I? I'm just calling attention to it so that you may enjoy the full roodicule you deserve. It's gotta be embarrassing if it made you change your whole name. And since I was here to see that road to Roo-in, I get why you'd need a fresh start.

Frankly this one's going even worse, what with "jizz boys" and "gay boys"...

Anyway, to rooiterate, you don't "prove" or "disprove" opinions. They don't work that way. It would be rooly stoopid to think that.

Don't you think?

So boy....you don't think facts supercede "opinions"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Run your church's float in the city's 4th of day parade. No problem.

Authority-endorsed prayer over the public school intercom: big problem.

Praying in tongues in the middle of English class at the public middle school: big problem.

Praying without coercing one's neighbor or disrupting the public educational process: no problem.

NONE of those should be problem if no one is being coerced into taking part.

Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with a school having a prayer over the loudspeaker for those who with to participate, regardless of the religion? Assuming appropriate content I mean.

Are you incapable of just sitting still respectfully for a few moments?

Because it’s un-Constitutional:

On June 19, 2000, in the case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (99-62), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Texas public school district's practice of opening high school football games with a prayer is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court first ruled against school-sponsored prayer in 1962 in Engel v. Vitale. Since then, the Court has consistently ruled against school-sponsored worship, while permitting voluntary student-initiated religious activities. The Santa Fe case began in 1995 when the parents of two students sued their Texas school district in federal court following adoption of a policy allowing students to elect a classmate to deliver a prayer over the stadium's public address system prior to football games.

Supreme Court Rules School Sponsored Prayer Unconstitutional

From the ruling:

The Court’s analysis is guided by the principles endorsed in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577. There, in concluding that a prayer delivered by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause, the Court held that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so,

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Run your church's float in the city's 4th of day parade. No problem.

Authority-endorsed prayer over the public school intercom: big problem.

Praying in tongues in the middle of English class at the public middle school: big problem.

Praying without coercing one's neighbor or disrupting the public educational process: no problem.

Can you give an example of prayer that coerces someone?

I could see a legitimate complaint if a school somehow "punished" kids who didn't participate in a prayer led over the loudspeaker, but if their only "punishment" is to sit there quietly for a few moments while those who wish to pray pray, well that's a pretty weak complaint.

Well if you were to punish those who made the conscience decision not to participate, that would be more of an example of establishment, allowing the opportunity for an individual to pray doesn't [by itself] equate in any way towards establishment of a state religion. Actually that would be an example of "respecting" another's decision to include religion in their life, and exercising tolerance.

On the other side, if our government were to disallow the rights of those who have a religious faith to appease those who don't, punishing those who have a desire to exercise such convictions, then that would ALSO be deemed an establishment of religion towards accepting an atheistic view. That's what many liberals don't understand and choose not to. That liberal view is also contrary to what our Founders had desired for this country. Religious beliefs ... ALL beliefs ... should be encouraged, rather than to see the complete removal from any and all forms of religion - that's what "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" infers.


"no man shall... suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain , their opinion in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whenever acting singly or collectively."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state AND church authorities by the several religious societies."
-- Thomas Jefferson March 4, 1805

United States Supreme Court 1963
school district of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203,212,225(1963),pp.21

It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. As we said in Eagle v. vitals. "The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion."

Secularism is unconstitutional....preferring those who do not believe over those who do believe... It is the duty of government to deter no-belief religions... Facilities of government cannot offend religious principles...

The state may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.

It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when present objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is disallowed his rights to express his religion on tax-supported grounds.

Any person can do so as long as he, in the public realm, does not coerce others or disrupts the public's business.

 

[WelfareQueen]

No one is disallowed his rights to express his religion on tax-supported grounds.

Any person can do so as long as he, in the public realm, does not coerce others or disrupts the public's business.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This is the precise language. It is very clear.


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


You can pray or worship however you like...whenever you like...public realm or no. There is no stipulation. If kids want to pray in school for example, there is nothing in the language of the Constitution that would prohibit that activity. If you want to place a cross in a military graveyard, I see nothing in the language above that would prohibit you doing so as the cross has both religious and historic meaning.

Ditto bringing up God or Christianity in the public realm or at a Government function. By doing so you are not "making a law respecting an establishment of religion." You are expressing your 1st amendment rights. You are not passing a law saying Christianity is the State religion. Atheist judges are the problem. The language in the Constitution could not be more clear. A simpleton could interpret it accurately.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a constitutional scholar, WQ, so of course you don't understand.

Consult the SCOTUS rulings to help you with that.

You may not interfere with others' rights in the performance of your own on tax-supported public grounds.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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.

Well, the one fact you libbiesd cannot get by is that our US Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.
So, you'll just have to be pissed off and grow up.
CASE CLOSED.

The establishment clause of the 1st amendment is obviously a constitutional guarantee of freedom FROM religion.

There is no state mandated religion so nobody can force us to pray or go to church.

 

[WelfareQueen]

You are not a constitutional scholar, WQ, so of course you don't understand.

Consult the SCOTUS rulings to help you with that.

You may not interfere with others' rights in the performance of your own on tax-supported public grounds.

Jake, you don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand plain English. Their rulings are completely contradictory. They don't know what the fuck they are doing because it is about politics...not the Law. Look it up. There are multiple rulings that directly contradict each other.

Here is just one example of the Courts' arbitrariness regarding this issue. There are dozens of others. The language is clear. That is not the problem. The problem are the judges.


Ex: "On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas state capitol due to the monument's "secular purpose." In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose."


WTF? So now a display has to have a motive? Show me exactly where the language in the Constitution is that references the intended motive of the display. Fucking ridiculous.

 

[Kosh]

Notice how the far left only sees one religion (Christianity) as their hatred for Christianity suppresses the religious rights of other religions. Well except for AGW and far leftism.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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.

Right, but that doesn't mean they are joined together.

Religions are subordinate to the Chinese government but that doesn't mean there is no separation of church and state in China. Otherwise, the Chinese government would endorse 1 single religion and make decisions that favor or are based on said religion. That's not what the Chinese government is doing. Their laws regarding religion are merely an excuse to subjugate religion and have nothing to do with my point.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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?

That is not true at all.

I have seen nothing on this thread that contradicts my point. No one has come close to refuting the logic of it.

This post of yours is evidence. You can't even begin to explain how what you posted contradicts my point.

Because it doesn't.

Case closed!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a constitutional scholar, WQ, so of course you don't understand.

Consult the SCOTUS rulings to help you with that.

You may not interfere with others' rights in the performance of your own on tax-supported public grounds.

Jake, you don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand plain English. Their rulings are completely contradictory. They don't know what the fuck they are doing because it is about politics...not the Law. Look it up. There are multiple rulings that directly contradict each other.

Here is just one example of the Courts' arbitrariness regarding this issue. There are dozens of others. The language is clear. That is not the problem. The problem are the judges.


Ex: "On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas state capitol due to the monument's "secular purpose." In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose."


WTF? So now a display has to have a motive? Show me exactly where the language in the Constitution is that references the intended motive of the display. Fucking ridiculous.

WQ, you have every right to disagree and register your disagreement.

Your wrong because the separation of church and state has been settled by the Constitution and SCOTUS's interpretation of such.

 

[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 is the state religion? Why MONEY, of course!

And the term 'separation of church and state' is NOT used in the Constitution.

The clauses referred to are knows as the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause.

Nowhere does the Constitution bar things like a prayer before Congress convenes, or the use of 'in God we trust' on our money. I don't think a government can completely 'separate' itself from religion simply because religion is a part of the culture any government serves. I believe it was James Madison who supported the country having many sects to insure balance.

Now before you condemn out of hand what I have written, please explain Obama's 'reaching out' to the muslim of the world in May of 2009. It would seem that, under the 'separation' argument the prezbo, as a representative of the US and her foreign policy, and as an elected official of the United States, perpetrated a severe constitutional violation when he did that.

Obama reaches out to Muslims - Washington Times

You don't get my point.

I will explain it in as simple terms as I can.

The establishment clause = separation of church and state. It means the same thing in different words.

The rest of your post is not directly relevant to that single point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Notice how the far left only sees one religion (Christianity) as their hatred for Christianity suppresses the religious rights of other religions. Well except for AGW and far leftism.

Folks are afraid of some far right reactionary Christians who wish to use their moral values to interpret the Constitution to their benefit.

Won't happen.

 

[Kosh]

The Wall of Separation

Often when someone speaks of the constitutionally guaranteed right to religion, they also speak of "the wall of separation between church and state," or simply as "the separation of church and state." What does this mean, and what is the origin of this phrase?

It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendment for people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal government had no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to it than that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of the amendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed in religion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment.

One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, is directly responsible for giving us this phrase. In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, then-President Jefferson used the phrase — it was probably not the first time, but it is the most memorable one. He said:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Jefferson did not have a hand in the authoring of the Constitution, nor of the 1st Amendment, but he was an outspoken proponent of the separation of church and state, going back to his time as a legislator in Virginia. In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill that was designed to quash an attempt by some to provide taxes for the purpose of furthering religious education. He wrote that such support for religion was counter to a natural right of man:

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Jefferson's act was passed, though not without some difficulty, in Virginia. Eyler Robert Coates wrote that the act was copied in the acts or constitutions of several states, either in words or in concepts. Jefferson himself was in France by the time word of the act reached Europe, and he wrote back to America that his act was well-thought of and admired.

Jefferson's letter specifically pointed out by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v US (98 US 145 [1878]). For details on Reynolds, see the next section. It has been a notable metaphor for the 1st Amendment's non-establishment concept ever since.

Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Now it would seem that the far left hatred of Christianity is the sole bases for their stance. It is all about hatred and nothing else.