Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[The Infidel]

You guys are idiots.... you imply things into my U.S. Constitution that are NOT there and I intend to set the records straight.

Let me reiterate my earlier point, brother.

While the Constitution does not say word for word that there must be a separation of church and state the SCOTUS has interpreted it to mean that religion cannot be the foundation upon which law or government policy is established. The reason why is because those with religious motivations will simply pass laws which agree with the tenants of their particular faith (say Catholicism) and after dong this for a while what you end up with is a Catholic government in everything but name.

In other words it seems to be argued that as long as no one comes out and passes a law saying that we are a Catholic nation then government has not established a state religion....but if the government passes multiple smaller laws that are based on Catholic belief then government has in effect become a Catholic entity. The SCOTUS realizes this and as such they have consistently maintained that if government wants to pass a law it has to be for some reason OTHER than a religious one. So while the First Amendment doesn't say word for word "there will be a separation of church and state" that stance must be assumed and maintained in order to avoid the establishment of a state religion by proxy.

Now we can agree or disagree with the SCOTUS all we want on that interpretation but it's pretty clear that since its inception they have been very consistent in maintaining it.

Whether you like it or not, our laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

We can not have any laws establishing any particular religion though.

If I am casting a vote for a candidate, I want to be sure he/she lines up with my beliefs. I for one think abortion is murder, I for one think smaller gov't is a good thing, I for one think we need to get our debt under control, these are things I care about.

Vote for the guy that supports your beliefs, and stop telling me that The Constitution says we have to be totally religion free.

Why is it that only godless liberals are the only ones eligible for public office?

 

[Syphon]

Yes, the Declaration IS a founding document - but not a governing one. We are governed by the Constitution.

Hi, you have received -453 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
there is no Separation of church and state in my copy of The Constitution

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

The Infidel negged my above post, but I fail to see his logic since it was the Declaration of Independence being discuss. Apparently he has a "special" Constitution...

Are you whining about neg rep..... ?

You guys are idiots.... you imply things into my U.S. Constitution that are NOT there and I intend to set the records straight.

You big neg rep pussy

Plus... look at thread title. We are talking about Separation of church and state dummy. Pay attention when you spar with me



Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

its not "your" constitution. did you write it?

 

[koshergrl]

I don't believe the supreme court ever ruled that religion cannot be the foundation. I would like the wording cited, and linked.

 

[Syphon]

You're clearly not paying attention to anything I said. My position is that ALL religious influence, including my own religious beliefs, should be kept out of public policy.

that was not your position, your position is that abortion is murder. because abortion is "chopping up babies." that not a view shared by 100% of the public.

late term abortion.... maybe. but an abortion in the first 6-8 weeks (or even first 15) is not chopping up a baby.

so again, why are you religious view superior to everyone elses views? i respect your view, but i disagree that everyone should have to support it. i dont push my pro-choice views upon you, i simply ask that you respect my beliefs and dont push your on me. am i not free to choose how to live my life? i dont go around to churchs protesting organized religion as a cult, because you are free to live your life as you choose.

100 percent of the public doesn't view sharia as a brutal method of oppression and legalized murder, either.

So? Does that change what it is?

100 percent of the public doesn't think sex with children is depraved. Does that mean that those who think it's okay should get a pass?

there are laws which prohibit sex with a minor. hence the warren jeffs conviction.

i dont agree with sharia law, but i respect ones freedom to choose to live that way. now if it leads to a murder that is one thing, any killing of another human based on a religious belief is wrong. whether its a christian belief, muslim belief, or whatever. and we have laws that protect against that. ubtis animal sacrifice ok since its a religious freedom? the state of florida rules it is legal. do you agree with that?

again, why cant you respect someone elses freedom to choose how to live their life even if you disagree with it?
are you the same person who campaigns against gays and their lifestyle? dont they really bother you and affect your life so much that you have to force your beliefs up on them? why not just leave them alone. whatever happened to love thy neighbor?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Koshergirl's problem in life is that she's completely incapable of taking responsibility for herself, or thinking for herself. She's incapable of having a thought that isn't predicated upon what she personally thinks is God's will, and goes even farther by being incapable of considering that her perception of God's will might not be accurate. If she thinks God said the world was flat, she'll parrot that the world is flat. And when you present her with scientific evidence to the contrary, she'll sit here and say "That doesn't change the fact that the world it what it is."

I wonder if this isn't a kind of personality disorder, where a person is unable to comprehend truth through without filtering it through a filter of religious dogma. Where anything that is true can only recognized as true if one first attaches "religious belief" behind it.

 

[Syphon]

here are the supreme court ruling when it comes to separation of church and state: (take them for what they are worth)

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially-sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.
The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[40] The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." [41]
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in religious schools or the costs of secular instructional materials in religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[42] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.
In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[43] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.
When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[44] (See also: Creation and evolution in public education)
The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote.
On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.[45] In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.[46]

obviously from wikipedia.

 

[BluePhantom]

I don't believe the supreme court ever ruled that religion cannot be the foundation. I would like the wording cited, and linked.

Sigh....Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

Freedom of Religion and the Establishment Clause

Lemon v. Kurtzman | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The Establishment Clause and the Lemon Tests

 

[BluePhantom]

Whether you like it or not, our laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

We can not have any laws establishing any particular religion though.

Well our original set of laws certainly coincided with Judeo-Christian beliefs but they also coincided with a lot of other beliefs including secular ones. As I pointed out in another thread, laws against murder were around WAY before Moses wrote "thou shalt not commit murder". Whether they were actually based specifically on religious thought is debatable since many of the founders could hardly be called men of faith.

If I am casting a vote for a candidate, I want to be sure he/she lines up with my beliefs. I for one think abortion is murder, I for one think smaller gov't is a good thing, I for one think we need to get our debt under control, these are things I care about.

And that's perfectly fair and advisable. I don't think anyone is saying that voters should ignore their beliefs and the degree to which they match or fail to match a particular candidate.

Vote for the guy that supports your beliefs, and stop telling me that The Constitution says we have to be totally religion free.

I personally have never maintained that the Constitution says that. I have maintained that the SCOTUS has interpreted it that way.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't believe the supreme court ever ruled that religion cannot be the foundation. I would like the wording cited, and linked.

Sigh....Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

Freedom of Religion and the Establishment Clause

Lemon v. Kurtzman | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The Establishment Clause and the Lemon Tests

Yes, as I expected, there is nothing that in any way supports your claim that they determined that "religion cannot be the foundation".

Do you ever get tired of lying?

 

[koshergrl]

PS..."foundation" is not the same as "purpose". Shall I get the definitions for you?

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

i heard today that some buddhists want to add some buddhists symbols on the Federal Court House. anybody got a problem with that?

 

[The Infidel]

there are laws which prohibit sex with a minor. hence the warren jeffs conviction.

i dont agree with sharia law, but i respect ones freedom to choose to live that way. now if it leads to a murder that is one thing, any killing of another human based on a religious belief is wrong. whether its a christian belief, muslim belief, or whatever. and we have laws that protect against that. ubtis animal sacrifice ok since its a religious freedom? the state of florida rules it is legal. do you agree with that?

again, why cant you respect someone elses freedom to choose how to live their life even if you disagree with it?
are you the same person who campaigns against gays and their lifestyle? dont they really bother you and affect your life so much that you have to force your beliefs up on them? why not just leave them alone. whatever happened to love thy neighbor?

There is NO place for sharia law in The United States of America..... NONE WHATSOEVER!!

We are all created equal and are to be treated that way.... period end of story.

If you want Sharia, get the fuck out of America!

 

[The Infidel]

i heard today that some buddhists want to add some buddhists symbols on the Federal Court House. anybody got a problem with that?

 

[BluePhantom]

I don't believe the supreme court ever ruled that religion cannot be the foundation. I would like the wording cited, and linked.

Sigh....Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

Freedom of Religion and the Establishment Clause

Lemon v. Kurtzman | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The Establishment Clause and the Lemon Tests

Yes, as I expected, there is nothing that in any way supports your claim that they determined that "religion cannot be the foundation".

Do you ever get tired of lying?

Can you fucking read?

(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.<<<

sec·u·lar/&#712;seky&#601;l&#601;r/
Adjective:
Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

if it's not secular it's religious. If there is no purpose that is not based in religion (or to get rid of the double negative: if it IS based in religion) it violates the establishment clause.

(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

You can't be as stupid as you come across. It's just not possible.

 

[koshergrl]

Purpose does NOT equal foundation, you nitwit. Can YOU read? You insist on changing words to mean exactly what you want, just as you insist on changing the constitution and law to mean exactly what you want. It's nauseating.

 

[The Infidel]

Whether you like it or not, our laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

We can not have any laws establishing any particular religion though.

Well our original set of laws certainly coincided with Judeo-Christian beliefs but they also coincided with a lot of other beliefs including secular ones. As I pointed out in another thread, laws against murder were around WAY before Moses wrote "thou shalt not commit murder". Whether they were actually based specifically on religious thought is debatable since many of the founders could hardly be called men of faith.

If I am casting a vote for a candidate, I want to be sure he/she lines up with my beliefs. I for one think abortion is murder, I for one think smaller gov't is a good thing, I for one think we need to get our debt under control, these are things I care about.

And that's perfectly fair and advisable. I don't think anyone is saying that voters should ignore their beliefs and the degree to which they match or fail to match a particular candidate.

Vote for the guy that supports your beliefs, and stop telling me that The Constitution says we have to be totally religion free.

I personally have never maintained that the Constitution says that. I have maintained that the SCOTUS has interpreted it that way.

Fair enough.... we just have to agree to disagree on very small points.
We basically line up enough to get along just fine.

Thanks for keeping it high brow BluePhantom

 

[Intense]

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.

You should take the time to realize that the Separation you barely touch on is the Separation of Dogma from State, not Ideal or Principle. As an Elected Representative or an Appointed one, You do Not leave your Conscience or Better Judgement at home, nor are you required to. You do understand that, Right?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

there are laws which prohibit sex with a minor. hence the warren jeffs conviction.

i dont agree with sharia law, but i respect ones freedom to choose to live that way. now if it leads to a murder that is one thing, any killing of another human based on a religious belief is wrong. whether its a christian belief, muslim belief, or whatever. and we have laws that protect against that. ubtis animal sacrifice ok since its a religious freedom? the state of florida rules it is legal. do you agree with that?

again, why cant you respect someone elses freedom to choose how to live their life even if you disagree with it?
are you the same person who campaigns against gays and their lifestyle? dont they really bother you and affect your life so much that you have to force your beliefs up on them? why not just leave them alone. whatever happened to love thy neighbor?

There is NO place for sharia law in The United States of America..... NONE WHATSOEVER!!

We are all created equal and are to be treated that way.... period end of story.

If you want Sharia, get the fuck out of America!

Why are you trying to have a reasonable conversation with that person? That's not what they want at all.

S/he can't even admit that Sharia totally violates other aspects of the COTUS, such as the fourth amendment, and thus is incompatible with US law and THAT is the objection to it. It's not about religion, it's about human rights.

 

[koshergrl]

Everything that true Christians DO has a religious foundation, and they have a right to do that. Basing your policies and your actions on religion does NOT mean the purpose of them is to establish a religion or religious practices.

This is English. Learn it, you lying sack. Or maybe you're just that stupid. Anyway, learn it if you're going to argue it.

 

[BluePhantom]

PS..."foundation" is not the same as "purpose". Shall I get the definitions for you?

You can't be serious. You bitch about how separation of church and state is a myth, then I and Syphon provide a shitload of SCOTUS case law as you requested to demonstrate "why no it's not a myth" and now you want to split hairs over the definition of purpose and foundation. You're a fucking lunatic KG.