Separation of Church and State

[Blakcat51]

From David Barton's American Heritage Series (2011)
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, correspondence

This is one subject that we as Americans need to come to terms with. I ask that you research a bit yourself before posting a reply. This is who were are as Americans. Also, I would ask whether you'd allow anyone to misquote a statement from your personal communications.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, both signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote to each other concerning the phrasing and implications of the First Amendment. During their correspondence, Jefferson wrote Rush a response which included, "... 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 and State." The letter goes on to calm Rush and others. This phrase was taken out of context and continues to the present.

This private correspondence clarifies to Rush and other that the intent of the First Amendment was that government will generate no legislation affecting the establishment of a national religion, or prohibit religious pursuit of the individual. Neither attempts to affect the operation of the other, simply put.

Our elected officials are protecting every other religion, but do nothing to protect basic Christian principles that most will agree is the basis of our separation from England. However, if a major incident occurs (ie, the incident in Colorado), our elected officials are amongst the first to use Christian religion to make themselves look good.

 

[del]

have you met allie?

 

[hwyangel]

The first part of this provision is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second part is known as the Free Exercise Clause. Although the First Amendment only refers to Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses also binding on states
The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Barton is absolutely incorrect in his interpretation of state and church.

I advise all to read him to read every footnote carefully then go to the sources from which the notes come.

You will quickly realize that Barton is out of context.

 

[whitehall]

The original concept of "separation church/state" was obviously intended as a limit on federal power. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion which gave the federal government the power to limit freedom of religion. Through the years the democrat party has expanded the modern concept of "Separation" to the point that a 50 year old Korean War monument in San Diego was ordered bulldozed by federal judges because a single atheist was offended by a 40 Ft Cross. Today kids can chant to Allah in grammar school but they will be suspended if they dare to carry a Bible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, both signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote to each other concerning the phrasing and implications of the First Amendment. During their correspondence, Jefferson wrote Rush a response which included, "... 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 and State." The letter goes on to calm Rush and others. This phrase was taken out of context and continues to the present.

The Supreme Court takes into consideration many documents and sources when deliberating an Establishment Clause issue, including sources from the Foundation Era. Foundation Era sources are not sacrosanct, however, they are not the sole authority as to the intent of the Framers, and are subject to interpretation in the context of those other sources, as the Framers did not speak with one voice.

This private correspondence clarifies to Rush and other that the intent of the First Amendment was that government will generate no legislation affecting the establishment of a national religion, or prohibit religious pursuit of the individual. Neither attempts to affect the operation of the other, simply put.

Constitutional case law is thus clear and explicit, that the Establishment Clause enjoins any jurisdiction from promoting religion absent a secular intent, it must not have the primary effect of promoting religion, and it must not manifest in an inappropriate entanglement of religion and the state. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Our elected officials are protecting every other religion, but do nothing to protect basic Christian principles that most will agree is the basis of our separation from England. However, if a major incident occurs (ie, the incident in Colorado), our elected officials are amongst the first to use Christian religion to make themselves look good.

Our elected officials aren’t ‘protecting’ any religion, nor is any religion being denigrated. It’s inane and ridiculous to argue there is some sort of ‘double standard’ in play with regard to the treatment of Christianity and other faiths.

 

[hwyangel]

Jesus said there would days like this.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Today kids can chant to Allah in grammar school but they will be suspended if they dare to carry a Bible.

No students have been suspended for carrying a Bible.

 

[Blakcat51]

Barton is absolutely incorrect in his interpretation of state and church.

I advise all to read him to read every footnote carefully then go to the sources from which the notes come.

You will quickly realize that Barton is out of context.

How can Barton be out of context, if his references come from historical documentation? Since it's already been verified where the phrase "separation of church and state" came from (private correspondence), how can this, or why should this have any affect on policies? Why is it that our founding fathers could pray so fervently and openly then, but now prayer has been taken out of school, and regulated to the point of how a prayer should be worded?

 

[JakeStarkey]

First, look up "context". Barton is out of context, using only texts with which he agrees and ignoring material that disagrees with him. Simply because he uses some historical materials does not mean he is in context. It is your duty to go to every footnote then to every source, and then read even more.

Second, anybody can pray in public school anytime he or she wishes, but cannot disrupt the educational process or be coercive of his neighbor while doing so.

Third, no prayer has been regulated as to wordage by government.

 

[onecut39]

The original concept of "separation church/state" was obviously intended as a limit on federal power. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion which gave the federal government the power to limit freedom of religion. Through the years the democrat party has expanded the modern concept of "Separation" to the point that a 50 year old Korean War monument in San Diego was ordered bulldozed by federal judges because a single atheist was offended by a 40 Ft Cross. Today kids can chant to Allah in grammar school but they will be suspended if they dare to carry a Bible.

May be in your world, not in the real one. Show me a case where a student was suspended for simply carrying a bible. Anyone, Muslim Chiristian or Budda may pray in school so long as it is not disruptive to other students.

Error #2: The Korean war memorial was not rejected because of the prominent cross. It was rejected because it was built on public land. It probably could have stayed without the cross but that wasn't the agenda.

The object was not to honor the veterans but to glorify Christianity. You can do that on your ownl and.

 

[Intense]

From David Barton's American Heritage Series (2011)
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, correspondence

This is one subject that we as Americans need to come to terms with. I ask that you research a bit yourself before posting a reply. This is who were are as Americans. Also, I would ask whether you'd allow anyone to misquote a statement from your personal communications.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, both signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote to each other concerning the phrasing and implications of the First Amendment. During their correspondence, Jefferson wrote Rush a response which included, "... 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 and State." The letter goes on to calm Rush and others. This phrase was taken out of context and continues to the present.

This private correspondence clarifies to Rush and other that the intent of the First Amendment was that government will generate no legislation affecting the establishment of a national religion, or prohibit religious pursuit of the individual. Neither attempts to affect the operation of the other, simply put.

Our elected officials are protecting every other religion, but do nothing to protect basic Christian principles that most will agree is the basis of our separation from England. However, if a major incident occurs (ie, the incident in Colorado), our elected officials are amongst the first to use Christian religion to make themselves look good.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. 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. -James Madison

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

 

[Intense]

First, look up "context". Barton is out of context, using only texts with which he agrees and ignoring material that disagrees with him. Simply because he uses some historical materials does not mean he is in context. It is your duty to go to every footnote then to every source, and then read even more.

Second, anybody can pray in public school anytime he or she wishes, but cannot disrupt the educational process or be coercive of his neighbor while doing so.

Third, no prayer has been regulated as to wordage by government.

By your absurd argument, you are out of context. Jakey, Jakey, Jakey...........

 

[JakeStarkey]

Out_of_Sense, you rarely demonstrate context. So I will take your comment above for what it is worth. I expect you to recognize a higher standard but apparently you don't. Your issue, not mine.

 

[pinqy]

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. 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. -James Madison

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

One of the most stirring passages for Separation ever, and a strong counter argument to Mr. Barton's claims..especially in part 3

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?

and in part 4

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.

The Bartons of this country would have us believe that we do not have to grant equal freedom to all religions and that Christianity should have precedence. Madison was very clear against that idea.

 

[Blakcat51]

The original concept of "separation church/state" was obviously intended as a limit on federal power. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion which gave the federal government the power to limit freedom of religion. Through the years the democrat party has expanded the modern concept of "Separation" to the point that a 50 year old Korean War monument in San Diego was ordered bulldozed by federal judges because a single atheist was offended by a 40 Ft Cross. Today kids can chant to Allah in grammar school but they will be suspended if they dare to carry a Bible.

The phrase came from Jefferson's private correspondence. It was used to clarify to Benjamin Rush how these two entities should be separate. Also, let me enlighten a couple of you; our military chaplains have to pray a certain way so as not to offend others.... the Chaplain in Congress is simply a position maintained due to tradition. Some schools allow for a moment of silence, many allow students to not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (which "under God" I'm understanding is being considered for removal from the pledge). I 100% agree with your last statment. This is the federal government interfering with local state governments with how their local educational institutions can conduct school business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Today kids can chant to Allah in grammar school but they will be suspended if they dare to carry a Bible.

No students have been suspended for carrying a Bible.

Student Suspended For Bringing Bible To School Files Suit - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego

 

[Ariux]

Liberals think the First Amendment requires the all levels of government and all government employees to discriminate against Christianity.

Maybe they don't think that. They're just hateful bigots looking for excuses to discriminate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ACLU is defending the boy.

"A lawsuit was filed against a local school district after a 16-year-old boy says he was suspended from an East County high school for bringing his Bible to campus and preaching."


The issue will turn on the point of "disruption".

Today kids can chant to Allah in grammar school but they will be suspended if they dare to carry a Bible.

No students have been suspended for carrying a Bible.

Student Suspended For Bringing Bible To School Files Suit - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego

 

[emilynghiem]

Error #2: The Korean war memorial was not rejected because of the prominent cross. It was rejected because it was built on public land. It probably could have stayed without the cross but that wasn't the agenda.

The object was not to honor the veterans but to glorify Christianity. You can do that on your ownl and.

Dear Onecut:
1. what about the case in CA where the offer was "turned down" to sell the land to a private organization in order to preserve the memorial cross on site? this would have resolved the issue. instead by blocking this solution, it was clear the agenda was not to solve the problem of public ownership but to make a statement against saving the cross.

2. note: in Texas there was a case resolved by acknowledging the Bible was a historic factor and contributing source in the laws, and independent of being religious it was historical and could be preserved as part of a display on state grounds.

likewise the cross does not need to be interpreted as religious specific to Christianity alone.
people taking both sides need to quit pushing agenda and quit abusing cases for that.