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

To expand the bold part

act of the whole American people which 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 & State.

Note the "wall of separation between church and state." Barring the establishment of a religion is considered shorthand for the wall of separation between church and state.

In other words, as I said in my initial post...it's a synonym.

I note that you ignore the "free exercise clause" not surprising. A lot of people do that.

I'm not ignoring it.

It is not germane to my point.

Precisely! It's not "germane" because it blows your argument out of the water.
 
To expand the bold part

act of the whole American people which 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 & State.

Note the "wall of separation between church and state." Barring the establishment of a religion is considered shorthand for the wall of separation between church and state.

In other words, as I said in my initial post...it's a synonym.

That was a letter to a church in the town I went to school in, not part of the 1st Amendment or SCOTUS precedent .
It is not synonymous.

No one wants you to be forced to believe in God. In return, all we ask is that you not interfere with my desire to worship Him as I see fit.
The wall of separation Jefferson spoke of works both ways. It is every bit as much a wall of separation between State and church as one between church and State.

Jefferson's letter is the reasoning behind the 1st amendment establishment clause.

No! The First Amendment is the reasoning behind Jefferson's letter.
Jefferson's choice of order is accidental. Church/State or State/Church, so what?
The founders' intent was for the new government to be silent on religion.
 
What you believe is immaterial, just as what I believe is, according to the 1st Amendment. That is the whole point. I cannot insist you worship God, and you cannot insist I don't.

Strict interpretation should render the Federal government impotent (and silent) with regard to religion.

So, in your opinion should the birthday of the Messiah be a federal holiday?

You may want to look at the history behind President Lincoln proclaiming a day of "Thanksgiving", if you believe there is a problem in having our nation recognize Christmas.

Just asking.

Does the Federal Government recognize as a holiday any special day for any other religion?
 
So, in your opinion should the birthday of the Messiah be a federal holiday?

You may want to look at the history behind President Lincoln proclaiming a day of "Thanksgiving", if you believe there is a problem in having our nation recognize Christmas.

Just asking.

Does the Federal Government recognize as a holiday any special day for any other religion?

As a benefit for employees who want the day off... a majority will want to celebrate it, and other holidays, in their own way... so having it hurts nobody and does not state sponsor or establish a religion
 
So, in your opinion should the birthday of the Messiah be a federal holiday?

You may want to look at the history behind President Lincoln proclaiming a day of "Thanksgiving", if you believe there is a problem in having our nation recognize Christmas.

Just asking.

Does the Federal Government recognize as a holiday any special day for any other religion?

News Year Day
A Pagan Holiday.

Christmas is
Birth of Christ
Winter Solstice pagan holiday
 
That was a letter to a church in the town I went to school in, not part of the 1st Amendment or SCOTUS precedent .
It is not synonymous.

No one wants you to be forced to believe in God. In return, all we ask is that you not interfere with my desire to worship Him as I see fit.
The wall of separation Jefferson spoke of works both ways. It is every bit as much a wall of separation between State and church as one between church and State.

Jefferson's letter is the reasoning behind the 1st amendment establishment clause.

No! The First Amendment is the reasoning behind Jefferson's letter.
Jefferson's choice of order is accidental. Church/State or State/Church, so what?
The founders' intent was for the new government to be silent on religion.

At the national level originally, while leaving the established state churches alone.

Time and culture and the American narrative led to the de-establishment of state churches.

That religious freedom (of and from) remains so important that Americans still struggle politically and quarrel over it.
 
They are not. They are challenges from some aggrieved party egged on by the ACLU.
WHo are you to tell people what their religion requires?

So anyone can claim any action to be part of their religious practices, and it must be accepted regardless of what their own doctrines and holy texts actually say?

Are you sure you want to open THAT door? Many Wiccans believe their rituals should be performed "skyclad" (meaning naked). If your school led prayer should not be stopped, why should their skyclad rituals be stopped?

Argumentum ad absurdum is also a logical fallacy.
Fail.

Is it Argumentum ad absurdum? Because what you are saying is that no one can tell anyone what their religion requires. You do that defending group prayer events, which as a Christian I had never seen any biblical basis for.

Is a Wiccan ceremony on public so farfetched? If so, it is only because of their fear of fundamentalist Christians.
 
You're joking, right? The news is filled with stories about challenges to people praying all the time. Sporting events, graduations, sessions of the legislature. Google is your friend.

There are challenges to prayers lead by employees of state institutions or group prayers.

Are you saying your religion requires that you pray in groups? Does God not hear your prayer unless it is part of an event? In fact, I recall a parable in the bible condemning such showy praying.

No, it does not, but it (the 2nd Amendment) forbids the Federal Government from forbidding me to pray in groups.

The federal gov't does not forbid you from praying in groups.

They only forbid you from using public property (meaning paid for and maintained by all taxpayers) when doing so. No federal law has ever been against prayer in groups.
 
So anyone can claim any action to be part of their religious practices, and it must be accepted regardless of what their own doctrines and holy texts actually say?

Are you sure you want to open THAT door? Many Wiccans believe their rituals should be performed "skyclad" (meaning naked). If your school led prayer should not be stopped, why should their skyclad rituals be stopped?

Argumentum ad absurdum is also a logical fallacy.
Fail.

Is it Argumentum ad absurdum? Because what you are saying is that no one can tell anyone what their religion requires. You do that defending group prayer events, which as a Christian I had never seen any biblical basis for.

Is a Wiccan ceremony on public so farfetched? If so, it is only because of their fear of fundamentalist Christians.

yes it is an argumentum ad absurdum fallacy. You want to say that if I think Christians should be able to pray before football games then I also must support human sacrifice. That is absurd.

I am telling you you cannot dictate to others what the requirements of their religion are. That is part of free exercise.
 
Is Christmas a Federal Holiday?

Is MLK day?? Does not mean that we deify MLK as a country

Is Arbor Day a federal holiday? Does that mean we have a state religion of druidism??

Yes. No, MLK has yet to be called the Son of God.

Yes. No. Druids were into planting trees?

Btw, I believe Christmas has been co-opted into the greatest celebration of Capitalism/Materialism in history.

Since the holiday has already been co-opted to create Xmas, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Besides, it is up to whomever is celebrating it to determine what the holiday means.
 
There wasn't Jefferson's "letters" there was Jefferson't letter to the Danbury Baptists who wrote inquiring as to whether their Church would be allowed to exist. Jefferson wrote back assuring them that government would not interfere with worship as there was a separation between church and state.

The letter in question.

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

To expand the bold part

act of the whole American people which 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 & State.

Note the "wall of separation between church and state." Barring the establishment of a religion is considered shorthand for the wall of separation between church and state.

In other words, as I said in my initial post...it's a synonym.

That was a letter to a church in the town I went to school in, not part of the 1st Amendment or SCOTUS precedent .
It is not synonymous.

No one wants you to be forced to believe in God. In return, all we ask is that you not interfere with my desire to worship Him as I see fit.
The wall of separation Jefferson spoke of works both ways. It is every bit as much a wall of separation between State and church as one between church and State.

All religious organizations operate free from taxes. Given the amount of political rhetoric and campaigning coming from many pulpits, it seems to me that the wall does work both ways.
 
You may want to look at the history behind President Lincoln proclaiming a day of "Thanksgiving", if you believe there is a problem in having our nation recognize Christmas.

Just asking.

Does the Federal Government recognize as a holiday any special day for any other religion?

As a benefit for employees who want the day off... a majority will want to celebrate it, and other holidays, in their own way... so having it hurts nobody and does not state sponsor or establish a religion

Whether it hurts anyone is not what he is asking. Whether any other religious holiday is recognized by the federal gov't is what he asked.
 
Freedom from Religion has become banning religion from public places based on peoples feelings.

Just because you hear prayers at a High School Sporting event and it make you feel bad, does not give that individual the right to Ban that prayer.
Feeling bad is not forcing you become Christian.

We have started using court cases based on how you feel rather than what the law says
Why have laws if they mean nothing.

Having nativity scenes or Menorahs or an atheist display on public property maintained by taxpayers should not be banned.
But Atheists are pushing to ban the word Christ from Christmas.
That is a violation of Christians rights.
 
The nonsensical argument of "God out of schools" has always been a stupid one.

One, who is going to tell God to "get out of my school" and enforce it.

Two, anyone can pray in any public school has long as the educational process is not disrupted and the prayer's neighbors are not infringed upon.
 
Argumentum ad absurdum is also a logical fallacy.
Fail.

Is it Argumentum ad absurdum? Because what you are saying is that no one can tell anyone what their religion requires. You do that defending group prayer events, which as a Christian I had never seen any biblical basis for.

Is a Wiccan ceremony on public so farfetched? If so, it is only because of their fear of fundamentalist Christians.

yes it is an argumentum ad absurdum fallacy. You want to say that if I think Christians should be able to pray before football games then I also must support human sacrifice. That is absurd.

I am telling you you cannot dictate to others what the requirements of their religion are. That is part of free exercise.

And I am telling you that, like the plaque in OK by the Satanists, your claim will open the door for many other kinds of religious rituals. That is certainly not absurd.

If you want to be able to pray and have a single religious faith represented at the football game, build your own schools and private stadiums. Otherwise, you are demanding that you be allowed to use properties and facilities paid for by all taxpayers to benefit your own religious ceremonies.
 
Freedom from Religion has become banning religion from public places based on peoples feelings.

Just because you hear prayers at a High School Sporting event and it make you feel bad, does not give that individual the right to Ban that prayer.
Feeling bad is not forcing you become Christian.

We have started using court cases based on how you feel rather than what the law says
Why have laws if they mean nothing.

Having nativity scenes or Menorahs or an atheist display on public property maintained by taxpayers should not be banned.
But Atheists are pushing to ban the word Christ from Christmas.
That is a violation of Christians rights.

How is anyone removing the word Christ from Christmas, much less removing the religious ceremony? How you celebrate Christmas is up to you. But if some retailer wants to be more inclusive of other faiths, then why should you be able to demand it only be Christian Christmas that is celebrated?
 
Just asking.

Does the Federal Government recognize as a holiday any special day for any other religion?

As a benefit for employees who want the day off... a majority will want to celebrate it, and other holidays, in their own way... so having it hurts nobody and does not state sponsor or establish a religion

Whether it hurts anyone is not what he is asking. Whether any other religious holiday is recognized by the federal gov't is what he asked.

o-EID-STAMP-570.jpg


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2008-10-06/pdf/WCPD-2008-10-06-Pg1281.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-76/pdf/STATUTE-76-Pg1447.pdf
 
You may want to look at the history behind President Lincoln proclaiming a day of "Thanksgiving", if you believe there is a problem in having our nation recognize Christmas.

Just asking.

Does the Federal Government recognize as a holiday any special day for any other religion?

News Year Day
A Pagan Holiday.

Christmas is
Birth of Christ
Winter Solstice pagan holiday

New Years Day is celebrated by most cultures. (And not all on Jan 1st)

Okay let me ask this way, any other federal holiday with the Religious Name associated with it. It's called Christmas not Winter Solstice Day.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top