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

[JakeStarkey]

We had prayer in our schools since the founding of our nation until it was taken out in 1962.
Ever since then our school system has been going downhill as well as the behavior of our children. Seems to me we took the wrong direction and instead of banning Christian prayer we should have included more religions to accommodate everyone.

Not in all schools, not in all states. For instance, I never once in public school had organized prayer in our classrooms or our assemblies, and I attended three different school systems.

Do you really think you can ban God from the classroom? Go tell Him she is not wanted.

Your desire violates the Constitution.

Tell that to the founders whose letters all talked of wanting religion taught.
They never wanted the Federal Government running the schools.

I would if I could, but they are dead: the slave owners also among them with their slaves, too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This should be an easy one for the Obama drone:

Please show all laws that written and submitted by the Christian Church in the last 40 years.

Watch how easy this is to expose you for the so-called "Christina" shilling you are up to here.

You are not a conservative, Kosh, and your request means nothing because we are talking about so-called "Christians" pushing locally, state-wide, and nationally for laws that would coerce those who don't want rightwing reactionary so-called Christian religious practices in our public schools.

So you now admit that it was far left propaganda you were pushing.

In other words you can not back up your claims.

Typical far left!

You admit that you are a far right reactionary with an anti-American agenda to overthrow civilization.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't want teachers teaching religion to my kids. I can barely tolerate them teaching reading and writing to my kids.

However, having a prayer at school is NOT teaching religion to kids. Oh , it might be teaching religious tolerance to kids, to but that certainly isn't unconstitutional.

See, that's what it really boils down to. The left and the right are EQUALLY intolerant, just of different things.

What kind of messed up world do we live in when the same person who abhors the idea of prayer in school defends some little 5th grade boy's "right" to use the girl's bathroom?

It's a world that I'm ashamed of, I can tell you that.

This country DESPERATELY needs a dose of TRUE conservatism. I don't mean fake conservatives who want to control people. I mean TRUE conservatives who stand up and say you mind your own business, and I'll mind mine, and we'll actually have the government obey the COTUS for a change.

I thought the issue was school "sanctioned" prayer such as speeches at an assembly where a particular religion is taught to the kids. They can no more stop you from praying as they can stop you from day dreaming.

No such existed before, but to the far left it did.

I have no problem hearing about how someone's faith helped them do good in school, but the far left does not even want someone saying that. I don't care if someone claims it was Allah himself that helped them get straight A's, but I bet the far left would allow this.

I agree that the kid's speech did not violate the 1st Amendment.

And you worshipping Allah with Mohammed as his prophet should not be included in school.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is no state religion... hence the Establishment Clause.

Geeze...

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't want teachers teaching religion to my kids. I can barely tolerate them teaching reading and writing to my kids.

However, having a prayer at school is NOT teaching religion to kids. Oh , it might be teaching religious tolerance to kids, to but that certainly isn't unconstitutional.

See, that's what it really boils down to. The left and the right are EQUALLY intolerant, just of different things.

What kind of messed up world do we live in when the same person who abhors the idea of prayer in school defends some little 5th grade boy's "right" to use the girl's bathroom?

It's a world that I'm ashamed of, I can tell you that.

This country DESPERATELY needs a dose of TRUE conservatism. I don't mean fake conservatives who want to control people. I mean TRUE conservatives who stand up and say you mind your own business, and I'll mind mine, and we'll actually have the government obey the COTUS for a change.

I thought the issue was school "sanctioned" prayer such as speeches at an assembly where a particular religion is taught to the kids. They can no more stop you from praying as they can stop you from day dreaming.

No such existed before, but to the far left it did.

I have no problem hearing about how someone's faith helped them do good in school, but the far left does not even want someone saying that. I don't care if someone claims it was Allah himself that helped them get straight A's, but I bet the far left would allow this.

Yeah and that's yet another issue. Clearly the students first amendment rights should not be limited at school or any other public place.

 

[Katzndogz]

When I went to school we said The Lord's Prayer every day, right along with the Pledge of Allegiance. Every day. Bow your head and say the prayer.

We didn't have any religion at home. It was simply not part of our lives so I asked my mother why I had to say a prayer every day when it wasn't our religion. She told me that it certainly isn't going to hurt anyone, say the prayer. It's good for you.

She was right. It certainly isn't harmful. It might be good to remind children to forgive their tresspassers once in awhile.

 

[BillyZane]

Why would you want some school teacher to teach religion to your kids? I would argue the parents are more to blame for their kids behavior than whether religion is being taught in schools.

Improvements are being made to the school systems across the country. The places where the "scores" do no reflect improvement are usually tied to sectors of students who's parents are not educated.

I don't want teachers teaching religion to my kids. I can barely tolerate them teaching reading and writing to my kids.

However, having a prayer at school is NOT teaching religion to kids. Oh , it might be teaching religious tolerance to kids, to but that certainly isn't unconstitutional.

See, that's what it really boils down to. The left and the right are EQUALLY intolerant, just of different things.

What kind of messed up world do we live in when the same person who abhors the idea of prayer in school defends some little 5th grade boy's "right" to use the girl's bathroom?

It's a world that I'm ashamed of, I can tell you that.

This country DESPERATELY needs a dose of TRUE conservatism. I don't mean fake conservatives who want to control people. I mean TRUE conservatives who stand up and say you mind your own business, and I'll mind mine, and we'll actually have the government obey the COTUS for a change.

I thought the issue was school "sanctioned" prayer such as speeches at an assembly where a particular religion is taught to the kids. They can no more stop you from praying as they can stop you from day dreaming.

okay , even so. Who cares if a school sanctions a prayer as long as they don't ONLY sanction one religion's prayers?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When I went to school we said The Lord's Prayer every day, right along with the Pledge of Allegiance. Every day. Bow your head and say the prayer.

We didn't have any religion at home. It was simply not part of our lives so I asked my mother why I had to say a prayer every day when it wasn't our religion. She told me that it certainly isn't going to hurt anyone, say the prayer. It's good for you.

She was right. It certainly isn't harmful. It might be good to remind children to forgive their tresspassers once in awhile.

SCOTUS disagrees.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't want teachers teaching religion to my kids. I can barely tolerate them teaching reading and writing to my kids.

However, having a prayer at school is NOT teaching religion to kids. Oh , it might be teaching religious tolerance to kids, to but that certainly isn't unconstitutional.

See, that's what it really boils down to. The left and the right are EQUALLY intolerant, just of different things.

What kind of messed up world do we live in when the same person who abhors the idea of prayer in school defends some little 5th grade boy's "right" to use the girl's bathroom?

It's a world that I'm ashamed of, I can tell you that.

This country DESPERATELY needs a dose of TRUE conservatism. I don't mean fake conservatives who want to control people. I mean TRUE conservatives who stand up and say you mind your own business, and I'll mind mine, and we'll actually have the government obey the COTUS for a change.

I thought the issue was school "sanctioned" prayer such as speeches at an assembly where a particular religion is taught to the kids. They can no more stop you from praying as they can stop you from day dreaming.

okay , even so. Who cares if a school sanctions a prayer as long as they don't ONLY sanction one religion's prayers?

Because it is about religion, not just one brand of it.

 

[peach174]

When I went to school we said The Lord's Prayer every day, right along with the Pledge of Allegiance. Every day. Bow your head and say the prayer.

We didn't have any religion at home. It was simply not part of our lives so I asked my mother why I had to say a prayer every day when it wasn't our religion. She told me that it certainly isn't going to hurt anyone, say the prayer. It's good for you.

She was right. It certainly isn't harmful. It might be good to remind children to forgive their tresspassers once in awhile.

We also had the Lord's Prayer along with the Pledge of allegiance
It was generic and accommodated the big three religious which is Christians, Jews and Muslims.

But along with that we were taught in our schools generic religious principals, which was respect for your parents, killing was wrong, stealing was wrong, lying was wrong, being jealous was wrong and cheating was wrong.
That has all been taken out of our public schools when religion was ruled as unconstitutional. The reason for that was when public schools were no longer run by the States and was being regulated by the Federal Department of Education.

I also do not want teachers teaching the bible but the basic generic religious principals should be taught like it used to be.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Just as the United States Supreme Court settled this below:

United States Supreme Court 1963
school district of Abington Township v. Schempp

"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."

You honestly can't get any more clearer, black and white, statement than that Jake. Unlike you I was able to supported my views with case law. So excuse me if I hold THEIR interpretation at a little more high regard than yours.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

SCOTUS acts like it is there to help the government fuck over the people. In theory, it is there to protect us from the government. I fully support it when it does that, but will argue with them whenever they come up with a new ruling that says the government can steal from poor black people and give their property to rich white people. If you aren't willing to stand up and argue that they can be wrong when they are, you have no basis to defend them, which leaves you with the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No it is not, it is freedom from government control., not religion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Religion is under government control but that does not mean that government controls religion.

And you think I am stupid.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Atheists are using their views already to remove ALL religion, where they don't wish to have such beliefs expressed publicly. It's a lack of tolerance for religious freedom, where such differences of opinion only contradicts their own. Our Constitution already allows freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly through protestors pushing their "views" onto those who may not agree with them. Unfortunately Christians have a greater tolerance for allowing points of view to be expressed in protest that speaks in contradiction to religious beliefs, than secularists are willing to allow of religious expression that speaks contrary to their own worldly views.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If it was settled people would be able to clearly define what is, and is not, a violation of that standard. There isn't a scholar anywhere who ever says they know how the court will rule in a particular case.

 

[BillyZane]

I thought the issue was school "sanctioned" prayer such as speeches at an assembly where a particular religion is taught to the kids. They can no more stop you from praying as they can stop you from day dreaming.

okay , even so. Who cares if a school sanctions a prayer as long as they don't ONLY sanction one religion's prayers?

Because it is about religion, not just one brand of it.

Correct, and you and others are misreading the COTUS and the intent of the founding fathers.

NOWHERE did they suggest that people shouldn't be able to have prayers on public property or use public property for religious purposes. This is proven by the fact that they themselves HAD prayer on public property and used public property for religious purposes
.
ALL they intended was that the federal government itself would not have an official religion.

In fact, I'll go one further and state that they intended that the states themselves could have religious governments if they so chose.

 

[peach174]

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.

SCOTUS acts like it is there to help the government fuck over the people. In theory, it is there to protect us from the government. I fully support it when it does that, but will argue with them whenever they come up with a new ruling that says the government can steal from poor black people and giver their property to rich white people. If you aren't willing to stand up and argue that they can be wrong when they are, you have no basis to defend them, which leaves you with the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

They have been passing laws that harm the American people.
SCOTUS ruled the new ACA as constitutional but this law is harming millions of Americans.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

When I went to school we said The Lord's Prayer every day, right along with the Pledge of Allegiance. Every day. Bow your head and say the prayer.

We didn't have any religion at home. It was simply not part of our lives so I asked my mother why I had to say a prayer every day when it wasn't our religion. She told me that it certainly isn't going to hurt anyone, say the prayer. It's good for you.

She was right. It certainly isn't harmful. It might be good to remind children to forgive their tresspassers once in awhile.

SCOTUS disagrees.

SCOTUS thinks it's a bad thing? Learn to read moron. SCOTUS may have found the practice unconstitutional, but doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

No confusion.

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

That was the intent of Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who actually wrote the 1st amendment.

No it doesn't. The establishment clause is only half of the wall of separation between church and state. You want to make it the entire definition even though it is, arguably, the least important part.

For example, The United Kingdom has a state religion, and the Queen is officially the Head of the Church.. (Actually, it has four different state religions, and some places where it doesn't have a state religion.) Funny thing, it also has other religions that are free to have churches, and no one is actually compelled to become a member of the state church. That is because it also has laws which prohibit the government from interfering with other churches.

I find it interesting that someone who stated that they know more than me doesn't know that.