Jump to content

Separation of Church and State: A Fallacy


Recommended Posts

OK, I'm bored with fighting the evil forces of socialism, so here's another controvesial subject to ponder :

Those who believe that separation between church and state equals something akin to freedom from religion simply have no grasp of the history of this nation.

We'll start with the 1st Ammendment:

quote:


Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion
, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note the area in bold. An establishment of religion means two things --

1: An establishment of religion is a church. Congress can make no law regarding the church's rights or to limit those rights. In addition, Congress may not respect the political leanings of a church as an entity. However, Congress may respect the political leanings of the church's individual members, even if they fall in line with religious doctrinations. That is the basis of all democracy -- the majority rules.

2: The establishment of religion also means that Congress can make no law requiring anyone to fall as a member of a religion or a derivitive thereof, or that anyone be barred from specific religion worship.

No where in the Constitution does it say that Congress cannot fund religion-oriented activities within national interests. The only religion-oriented activity which cannot recieve federal funding is proselytizing. However, Congress also cannot limit private proselytizing.

In no way does it say that religious materials cannot be placed on federal property. While some may see that as a form of proselytizing, that would fall under a wide liberal stance. For one thing, such items such as the display of the 10 Commandments are not placed due to laws requiring such placement. Now read the 1st Ammendment again -- "Congress shall make no law..."

Our founding fathers also did not believe in the current incarnation of separation of church and state, and they are the ones who wrote the words that we infer to create such a separation. Check your history books -- in 1777 Congress voted to import 100,000 Bibles from Europe for distribution to the people. This hardly seems like the activity of people who wished to separate religion to the extent that some liberals do today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The ACLU wants you to believe that any reference to religion is unconstutional. What people need to realize is that the Founding Fathers didn't want the state to sponsor a specific religion, not religion in general.

In essence, it is okay (within government) to say "God Bless America," but it is not okay to say "Jesus Bless America" or "Allah Bless America." Remember, this goes back to England and the Church Of England. The Founders didn't want a government to dictate which religion people must follow. They only wanted to ensure that the practice of religion was not abridged.

Isn't it odd that the Congress has a chaplain that opens each session with a prayer, but we can't have schoolchildren say "...under God...?" The issue of religion in the USA is becomming a tyranny of the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see the power of the liberals then? They shout lies from the rooftops and pretty soon everyone thinks it's the truth, even when they have the original document to look at.

Words mean things and the liberals of this country enjoy a monopoly on the definitions.

You are absolutley correct Aramike, there is NO separation of Church and state, but the liberals have decided that that is what the first amendment means, even if that's not what it says.

Remember, words mean things, but liberals have changed the definitions, or read between the lines that don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals have positions in our college universities, our government school system, and our media.

This gets them elected to our government where their disastrous anti-individual policies are implemented against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, what a dull thread so far.

Lemme run this up the ol' heathen totem pole then:

[RP]

I hereby announce the establishment of the Church Of The Everlasting Bong-hit.

We've got lots of members flocking to our services. We glorify God by sparking up. And you should check out our Brownies For Charity fellowship every Thursday. Careful, don't 'prohibit my free exercise thereof.'

Now, whose job is it to determine whether or not my church is to be recognized (sanctioned?) by the state? A panel of middle-aged conservative white anglo-saxon protestant males? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Yeah, lemme guess how they're going to vote.

------------------------

I remember so many high school football games that had prayers that ended, "In Christ's name we pray" (not 'politically correct,' but no one ever stopped the MC). I could feel the (very few) non-Christians around me cringing at that. I believe that the 'Liberals' have pushed their agenda because of pervasive little abuses just like that.

Not every American prays in the Name of Christ. Plain and simple. You comfortable with that? You willing to acknowledge that 'Jesus stuff' injustice too, and to fight just as hard to right THAT wrong?

[/RP]

[Edit: ]

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinion on that is Religion is a Private thing.

As such, if a Group of STUDENTS wish to get together at a school to pray, so be it. BUT a Public school teacher should not participate or encourage.

Just remember that our Founding Fathers also put people into the stocks, or drove them out of town for proclaiming themselves to be Athiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

I don't think that Mike was arguing for secularism, but just the opposite.

The first amendment was not mandating secularism. It was saying that individuals have a right to worship the religion of their choice, or more appropriately, the government does not have the right to stop the individual from worshiping the religion of his choice.

The fact that this is in the Amendments and not the body of the Constitution is significant. The Constitution is a limiting-powers document. It is intended to give the government a structure and responsibilities, but with limits on its powers. The most important limits are those listed in the Bill Of Rights.

The Bill Of Rights is a declaration of the rights that are retained by the people. They cannot be taken away, or "abridged" by the government. The fact that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is in the Bill Of Rights means that the people, not the government, have the responsibility to monitor regious activity. Freedom of speech and freedom to assemble go hand-in-hand with freedom to worship, and they are all together in the first amendment.

However, as Charles reminds me in another thread, that's the way it should be but isn't.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current interpretation of the seperation of church and state is essentially that the government may not sanction the advancement of religion (in particular or as a group). This is, of course, much broader than what the 1st amendment literally says. The problem with taking the constitution word for word is that it is quite limited in that sense. The founding fathers designed the government to be flexible, so that it might keep pace with the progress of society. The constitution, for example, was considered to apply only to the federal government in the 18th and 19th centuries. The first amendment does specify congress as the lawmaking body it pertains to, after all. It was not until the supreme court ruled otherwise (even though the constitution appears only to apply to the federal government in many places) that the states were also prevented from infringing on these collection of rights that they often previously ignored. The spirit of the 1st amendment is that religion and government should remain seperate institutions. Many of the extreme liberal persuasion take that to mean that the government cannot give the appearence of sanctioning religion at all. They do have a point. If you walk past a house and a cross is prominently displayed on it, you would probably assume that those who lived there are Christian. If you then passed a state building with a cross displayed on it, you might suspect a religious tilt there as well. The state, which is supposed to be seperate from religion, should not have a religious tilt. While the display of the Ten Commandments is a ways away from this, it is essentially the same thing, but scaled down. The people who oppose any religion whatsoever in government might argue that one thing leads to another; a small thing like a poster of the Ten Commandments could lead to something much more prominent. The conservatives might then say that a large cross on a public building would cost the government money, and spending money on anything of the sort is explicitly prohibited in the 1st amendment, so an allowance for the display of religious documents would never escalate to that level. Assume the government does not pay for it, however. Say some rich guy donates the money for the symbol. Then what? This is why I believe that the extreme liberals have a point, just as I think the conservatives have one as well (I'd be out there marching with everyone else- conservative and liberal alike should the ACLU try to take away my weekends ).

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Melcar and disagree with a majority of Aramike's original premise.

There must be a definable line between Church and State!

Just look at the state of Utah and one will "see" where I am coming from. Them Mormons are all screwed up

TTFN

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Gallion ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had time to look this up, I would get exact figgures, but I don't so I will try this from memory. Please forgive any errors.

OK, quite awhile ago I remember reading a little clip on why the Ten Commandments were removed and the ideology behind the reason was quite twisted. In a nutshell it was proposed that if the Ten Commandments were displayed, students might read them and after reading them might actually follow them. After their removal, crime rate in schools increased sharply in comparison to previous years. When the biggest problem in your schools suddenly changes from chewing bubble gum and fistfights to rape and murder, something is wrong. When we took the Ten Commandments out of the schools, they removed an outward sign that reminded students that there was a moral code to be followed and even that there was a soverign God Who controls everything. Humans as a rece are depraved, sinful beings. Without a knowledge that there is someone greater than you who will punish wrong, there is no restraint on evil and society falls into disorder and eventually anarchy. Now with the Ten Commandments, yes they are a Divine law code delivered to Mosas, but they not for the most part a religious law code. If you wish to display the Hebrew religious laws, we would have quite a few more than ten commandments. Although the Ten Commandments are a civil law code they are found in Scripture and for the ACLU that in itself is enough to condemn them.

Unfortunately for America, we have allowed our schools to be twisted to meet the demands of groups such as the ACLU to the point that now our children are being indoctrinated with their ideology and morals. It is no wonder that America has the problems that it does today in light of the values being taught.

Aaron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

When we took the Ten Commandments out of the schools, they removed an outward sign that reminded students that there was a moral code to be followed and even that there was a soverign God Who controls everything. Humans as a rece are depraved, sinful beings. Without a knowledge that there is someone greater than you who will punish wrong, there is no restraint on evil and society falls into disorder and eventually anarchy

And therein lies the problem Eclipse, I do not believe in a Sovereign God who controls everything. There is nothing greater that will punish me. EQUALS will punish me if I do something that out of line.

Individuals who do wrong will do wrong whether there is a God to punish them or not.

Religion has caused MORE attrocities than anything else, Starting with the Crusades as the most Notable. People found Justification in Christianity to KILL. Same thing for the Spanish Inquisition. Which brings us to today, Osama Bin Laden, he claims religious justification for his attacks on the US. According to Many Muslims(Both in the US and the Middle East) There is NO justification for what he does in Islam.

So I'm afraid that just shot your argument of having a god who will punish you keeps you from doing wrong. People do wrong for their own reasons. They may make justification for it somewhere, but what it comes down to is quite simply they are EVIL, and do what they want, regardless of their religeon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunanta,

The Constitution was meant to be taken word for word, it is NOT a living breathing document. It's meaning is clear, it's meaning was meant to be clear. There can be NO mistaking what the constitution says.

Also, the constitution is the SUPREMEME law of the land, what it says goes in all 50 states. The states cannot intrude on the bill of rights just as the federal government cannot infringe on those rights.

If a state creates a law that goes against the constitution, that law is NULL AND VOID!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

After their [10 Commandments] removal, crime rate in schools increased sharply in comparison to previous years.

It is impossible to prove a direct and exclusive causal link between these two. Far too many factors weigh into this observed phenomenon.

quote:

If you wish to display the Hebrew religious laws, we would have quite a few more than ten commandments.

If a 'lack of' is bad (as you postulated above), wouldn't more be better? (I personally believe ALL religions' moral and ethical codes should be posted. That way kids can see that all religions have much in common, and the State would not be seen as supporting one religion above the others.)

quote:

now our children are being indoctrinated with their [ACLU's] ideology and morals

Civil Liberties include things I'm not so wild about, either. But specifically which of their ideologies and morals do you object to? Please quote from their website and cite the url. You're confusing what they stand for, with how they've sometimes put that into practice. The ACLU is not the only organization that has occasionally strayed from its stated goals.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar, the constitution is routinely interpreted by the supreme court to mean things outside the breadth of the language used. And yes, the constitution does apply everywhere- it does now. Before the supreme court effectively ruled that it applied to the states as well, it did not. This seemed reasonable at the time simply because that is what the constitution appeared to say (i.e. "Congress shall make no law...). It is also how the constitution was applied during the time of the founding fathers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you Jaguar...

quote:

The Constitution was meant to be taken word for word, it is NOT a living breathing document.

The whole amendment system was Developed so that our Constitution could Evolve as required. In essence a living breathing document.

And look again at the Structure of the government... 3 Branches: Legislative, Executive, Judicial.

Legislative - Creates the Law

Executive - Upholds the Law

Judicial - Interprets the Law(Yes that INCLUDES the Constitution)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The separation of church and state is a crock. It was never meant to be that way. No law can be enacted which interferes with private religion or establishment of religion.

Self evident is the fact that this country was founded on the idea of God.

Congress opens each session with a prayer.

Our currency is labeled "in God we trust"

Our pledge of allegiance identifies this country as "under God"

Atheists, and people of different religions are not prevented from what they are believing in, likewise they have no right to pass laws which prevent persons, groups, etc. from doing as they wish.

Like it or not, this is a nation under God, and those who disagree with that have no right to pass laws to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Yes, our Nation was founded on the Idea of God. And as you say Silk people are Free to Believe and Worship as they wish...

So what is the problem then with SEPERATING the religion from the State?

Just because of what Our Fore Fathers believed in? Our Nation was Meant to GROW and EVOLVE, become MORE tolerant Not less.

So you see nothing wrong with schools FORCING people to proclaim things the Students, and Parents may not believe in?

quote:

Like it or not, this is a nation under God, and those who disagree with that have no right to pass laws to change that.

So this is no longer a Government Of the People, For the People, BY the People. Unless we AGREE with our Fore Fathers Ideology?

EDIT:I HATE SPELLING ERRORS!

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Melcar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with completely separating the Church from the State is that, when you break the State down to its lowest components, you get the People. And you can't make the People stop practicing their religion while they are performing their government roles, because many people consider their faith to be a part of who they are.

We focus on the big symbols, like crosses and prayers, but nobody says anything about the little stuff, like wearing religious clothing (yamulkes, habits, turbans), jewelry, and the like. I had a state college humanities professor who was a priest. Should separation of church and state forced him out of the classroom? Do the workers in the government have to remove their necklasses with Crosses and Star of Davids?

It's easy to say that we'll let the individual worker wear what he or she likes, but the larger State must not do certain things. But there is no larger State that does these things, it eventually falls back to us to do or restrict from doing things. And many of us are just not wired to compartmentalize something as fundamental as their faith, to be turned on and off depending on whether it is allowed or prohibited.

The Founders were pretty clear about the things the put into the Constitution. If they meant for the complete separation of Church and State, they would have said so in plain words. They didn't. Many of the early settlers of the colonies were missionaries. There were Reverands as representatives at the signing of the Declaration Of Independence. I'm sure there were Reverands holding seats in Congress. They weren't trying to put a wall between Church and State, they were saying that the State can't prohibit the People from practicing religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Our founding fathers also did not believe in the current incarnation of separation of church and state, and they are the ones who wrote the words that we infer to create such a separation. Check your history books -- in 1777 Congress voted to import 100,000 Bibles from Europe for distribution to the people. This hardly seems like the activity of people who wished to separate religion to the extent that some liberals do today.

You mean these founding fathers?:

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."

--------------

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

--------------

"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter."

--------------

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

- Thomas Jefferson

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book [the Bible]."

--------------

"As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men."

--------------

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

----------------

"The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person [Jesus] who lived a life of poverty."

- Thomas Paine

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

- James Madison

Ben Franklin? Too many quotes to choose from.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...