Here we go...

[Libertarian_FL]

Well at a practical level the religious and secular should remain seperate as far as the US Consititution permits namely one should not unduly interfere with the other.

I will now be more controversial. Unless a ministry property use explicitely could be considered tax-exempt under a secular manner for charity all holy places should pay fair and equal taxes treated as a business entity. An example for reference say the Holy Moley Church has a sactuary for worship, a school the Holy Moley Academy ages Pre-K to 12th Grade and the Holy Moley Soup Kitchen the first and all attached property should be 100% taxed. The other two could be not for profit and therefore as a school and charity service tax exempt in those parts of the Holy Moley Church. I find the fact churches, temples and others refuse to pay taxes to the government and use the services just due to the use as a place for holy services offensive as a clergyman. And come on folks you know that favoritism helps you promote your faith with funds you most likely wouldn’t have if you were taxed, which violates the principles of seperation.

 

[ralphinal]

Well at a practical level the religious and secular should remain seperate as far as the US Consititution permits namely one should not unduly interfere with the other.

I will now be more controversial. Unless a ministry property use explicitely could be considered tax-exempt under a secular manner for charity all holy places should pay fair and equal taxes treated as a business entity. An example for reference say the Holy Moley Church has a sactuary for worship, a school the Holy Moley Academy ages Pre-K to 12th Grade and the Holy Moley Soup Kitchen the first and all attached property should be 100% taxed. The other two could be not for profit and therefore as a school and charity service tax exempt in those parts of the Holy Moley Church. I find the fact churches, temples and others refuse to pay taxes to the government and use the services just due to the use as a place for holy services offensive as a clergyman. And come on folks you know that favoritism helps you promote your faith with funds you most likely wouldn’t have if you were taxed, which violates the principles of seperation.

There are a lot of churchs now, and more every year, who are refusing the tax exempt status. Do you know why? So that they can come out and endorse political candidates and actually tell their members for whom to vote.

Are you willing to allow all groups to do that? Would that not create trouble for the separation of Church and State?

 

[Publisher]

Thankfully, we do have separation of church and state in our nation. I do not wish government influence in how I worship. I do not want government influenced religious imagery in public forums. Religious belief and practice is to be kept separate…government should not endorse any religious view to the exclusion of others.

I do not like the idea of religious tenents being taught in our public schools. No empty prayers recited by teachers who themselves may be athiest or agnostic. I believe parents should take the responsibility to instruct their children in matters religious. Public schools have no business endorsing a religious stance on a subject…even if a stance goes against their religious beliefs…they are in public employment and imposing their religious beliefs and mores upon impressionable children should be the responsibility of parents…not the state.

 

[JonNC]

Weird though it may seem, with this always being said, the U.S. does not have anything explicitly demanding separation of Church and State. The U.S. was actually started as a theocracy(the U.S. Constitution is based upon the Bible) prior to becoming a democracy.

I wouldn’t mind a theocracy. I don’t quite like pandering to others like nearly all other countries do.

The US has never been a theocracy, nor is it now a democracy. Article 4, section 4makes it clear that the US is a republic. The fact that it was founded on judeo-christian principles did not make it a theocracy.

Jon

 

[DOShea]

I do not like the idea of religious tenents being taught in our public schools. … Public schools have no business endorsing a religious stance on a subject…even if a stance goes against their religious beliefs…they are in public employment and imposing their religious beliefs and mores upon impressionable children should be the responsibility of parents…not the state.

That’s your opinion. The Founding Fathers disagreed with you. It’s a matter of historical record, a record which, btw, our current “no religious content” government schools will even dare to teach. They cannot teach the truth of history because it refutes the policies they hold today. They lie by omission, and most today accept that as perfectly fine.

I could tell you about my mother being told to stand in front of the class so that the others could pray that she not end up in hell, which is where are Catholics go. I have other stories to tell.

That’s an issue for the parents to take up with the school. It doesn’t describe the prayer in school that I participated in, and it sounds to me more like proselytizing than praying. I’m talking about prayer only.

What I participated in went like this:

We stood, we said the Pledge of Allegiance (including the “one nation under God” part), we prayed the Our Father, we had a moment of silence that allowed us to pray silently for our own intentions, we sang “America the Beautiful,” then sat down and got on with the lesson.

That’s just semantics. The government that regulates the schools is elected by the public.

Only partially. There are 98 US Senators and 434 Representatives I do not elect who effect every federal school policy we have, and it is these policies that are the source of most friction. None of us elected the Supreme Court who, breaking precedent with the first 160 years of federal court cases, removed prayer from school, citing that First Amendment expert, the one who wasn’t involved with it at all, Thomas Jefferson.

Well, I don’t know where you lived, possibly in the American South

It was in a small city of 120,000 people in New England. Within weeks of prayer being removed, my parents sent me to a Catholic school.

It was certainly founded on SOME tenets that are SHARED by the Christian faith. It was founded as religiously neutral from the start, mainly due to the influence of Deists, Unitarians and Freemasons.

What are you posing those tenets to be? I’m saying the founders believed in a Creator, that morality was based on Divine Law, not man’s. That prayer was important and united us in purpose, not divided us because one ultra-liberal preacher of tolerance was offended. Their expectation was that God had an important place in our lives, including in our schools, in our government. Their view of anyone who rejected those ideas was that they were not fit to hold office because they couldn’t be trusted. An oath taken by them carried little weight, and these were men to whom an oath meant everything. After all, many of them pledged their lives for the cause, and some gave up their life rather than betray it.

Want an example? See next post.

 

[DOShea]

Thomas Payne was considered a patriot for his famous pamphlet during the Revolutionary War. When he wrote The Age of Reason, a book that attacked Christianity specifically and religion in general, he sent an advanced copy to his friend Ben Franklin, asking his opinion.

The Age of Reason offers many of the same arguments that we hear today. In it, Payne says “religion is a terrible thing for a nation.” He cites all the atrocities committed in the name of religion; look at all the wars started over religion. Keep religion OUT of the nation. If you can’t do that, at least isolate it; keep it in the church and in the home, but NOT out in the public arena. These arguments sound familiar?

Here is Franklin’s reply: (emphases mine)

TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,

B. Franklin

Franklin argues that were we to take religion out of society, the effect would be a less clearer idea of virtue, less clear idea of the disadvantage of vice, and a reduction in the ability to resist temptation. Was he right?

Thomas Payne was ostracized by virtually everyone when his book was published. This is so typical of the culture of the Founding Fathers; there was NO way they were going to support or acknowledge anyone who wanted to secularize society. When Payne died some years later, he was so universally despised no American cemetery would accept his remains, and he was buried in a farmer’s field. So it doesn’t fly, this idea that religion’s tenets meant little to these men. They held them to be important, even required.

 

[beeliner]

1. The US has never been a theocracy,
2. …nor is it now a democracy. Article 4, section 4 makes it clear that the US is a republic.
3. The fact that it was founded on judeo-christian principles did not make it a theocracy.

1. Correct.
2. It is indeed a republic, but that is not saying much. So are/were many of the most oppressive dictatorships in history.

It is also a representative democracy. The voters elect their representatives in government.

1. As I said to another poster, it was founded on principles, SOME of which are shared to some extent by Judaism, Christianity, and various other religions, and other of which have really little or nothing to do with religion(s).

 

[beeliner]

There are 98 US Senators and 434 Representatives I do not elect who effect every federal school policy we have, and it is these policies that are the source of most friction. .

Whoa, lemme make sure I get this!

You’re saying that your congressional district should elect the entire US congress and the rest of us be damned?

 

[JonNC]

1. Correct.
2. It is indeed a republic, but that is not saying much. So are/were many of the most oppressive dictatorships in history.

It is also a representative democracy. The voters elect their representatives in government.

1. As I said to another poster, it was founded on principles, SOME of which are shared to some extent by Judaism, Christianity, and various other religions, and other of which have really little or nothing to do with religion(s).

It was intended to be a constitutional representative republic. Many of the founders (rightfully) abhored democracy.
Sadly, it is fast becoming a representative democracy, as the representatives, democratically elected, consider themselves less and less restrained by the Constitution

Jon

 

[beeliner]

…the representatives, democratically elected, consider themselves less and less restrained by the Constitution

Jon

Can you give some examples of that? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t think of any obvious examples; however, I’ve been living in Europe for most of the past ten years, only recently having returned to the USA.

Maybe you can enlighten me. Real examples of CLEARLY unconstitutional lawmaking, not mere partisan political rhetoric.

 

[AJTheMan]

Religion and government are to remain separate. The government should not endorse any religion by displays of religious icons, statues, symbols or scenes.

Our country was founded upon a “Utopian Experiment” who’s founders happend to be Christian…at least marginally…many were Diests and subscribed to Thomas Paine’s views. Read some of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

Religions should be able to practice their religious beliefs unless it conflicts with the law of the land…then that group must decide if they wish to engage in civil disobedience and face whatever consequences are met out by the law. The government should not restrict the free expression of religious beliefs…but not allow religious beliefs to trump the rule of law. We are governed by a secular government…not a religious one.

We are not a “Christian nation” we are a nation founded by Christians.

Perfectly said!

 

[Libertarian_FL]

There are a lot of churchs now, and more every year, who are refusing the tax exempt status. Do you know why? So that they can come out and endorse political candidates and actually tell their members for whom to vote.

Are you willing to allow all groups to do that? Would that not create trouble for the separation of Church and State?

I have no problem with that aminister should not be forced to lose their free speech rights and if they choose to pay taxes and maintain that status they should say what they want to. People are free not to listen to these ministers. And political speech and actions are also under the First Amendment are they not?

The only legal issue for me is not paying taxes hurts free speech as you noted political speech and gives churches and other holy places more money to promote their faith, also violating the same principles.

I would favor taxing holy centers not used for another purpose where if it was secular would be tax exempt, and trusting ministries to their moral conscious on these other matters.

 

[JonNC]

Can you give some examples of that? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t think of any obvious examples; however, I’ve been living in Europe for most of the past ten years, only recently having returned to the USA.

Maybe you can enlighten me. Real examples of CLEARLY unconstitutional lawmaking, not mere partisan political rhetoric.

The current healthcare debate, the Department of Education, National Endowment for the Arts, to name but a few. Dr. Walter Williams estimates that, as I recall, more than half of the money the central government spends is without constitutional mandate.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

I have no problem with that aminister should not be forced to lose their free speech rights and if they choose to pay taxes and maintain that status they should say what they want to. People are free not to listen to these ministers. And political speech and actions are also under the First Amendment are they not?

The only legal issue for me is not paying taxes hurts free speech as you noted political speech and gives churches and other holy places more money to promote their faith, also violating the same principles.

I would favor taxing holy centers not used for another purpose where if it was secular would be tax exempt, and trusting ministries to their moral conscious on these other matters.

Here is where my real world experiences say there is a problem. Here in Alabama, it would be “Vote for him or go to hell” and then you would have to be a member of a certain religion to get elected.

We see it now with other issues in this state. Yes, it says more about the non-Catholic voters than it does about anything else, but the government does have a duty to protect its citizens.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Here is where my real world experiences say there is a problem. Here in Alabama, it would be “Vote for him or go to hell” and then you would have to be a member of a certain religion to get elected.

We see it now with other issues in this state. Yes, it says more about the non-Catholic voters than it does about anything else, but the government does have a duty to protect its citizens.

Its still up to the moral conscienceof the minister or other religious leader, they will answer to me or you for doing wrong but to God. I would also note Christians are not supposed to be mindless sheep we are to know the Word of God and what He teaches us and to follow THEIR moral conscience as well. But if a person running for office is not a moral person why should the faithful minister not oppose them for office?

Say a man or woman is ,say, supportative of elective abortion I would say openly opposing them may be a moral act by some.

I still argue not paying taxes and not trusting the majority of ministers to act morally is underestimating people of faith in leadership.

 

[ralphinal]

Its still up to the moral conscienceof the minister or other religious leader, they will answer to me or you for doing wrong but to God. I would also note Christians are not supposed to be mindless sheep we are to know the Word of God and what He teaches us and to follow THEIR moral conscience as well. But if a person running for office is not a moral person why should the faithful minister not oppose them for office?

Say a man or woman is ,say, supportative of elective abortion I would say openly opposing them may be a moral act by some.

I still argue not paying taxes and not trusting the majority of ministers to act morally is underestimating people of faith in leadership.

I am afraid that to remove it is to overestimate them.

Sorry. I have seen too much proof to the contrary.

 

[peary1]

How do you (anyone) feel about a church and state government?

Separate but equal.

 

[beeliner]

The current healthcare debate, the Department of Education, National Endowment for the Arts, to name but a few. Dr. Walter Williams estimates that, as I recall, more than half of the money the central government spends is without constitutional mandate.

Jon

Oh, c’mon, if you can’t do any better than that, hang it up! “without constitutional mandate” is a ‘phrase of art’, like ‘divinely inspired’. It can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

‘Walter Williams’ is a very common name. If you mean the conservative commentator, he has a BACHELOR’S degree in economics, as do MILLIONS of the rest of us. What is he a DOCTOR of?

In any case, how are ANY of the things you mentioned UNconstitutional, that is how do they VIOLATE the constitution?

There was an election in 2008.

Your side LOST - decisively.

You will have another chance in 2012.

PLEASE nominate Sarah Palin! Please, please, please!

 

[peary1]

Once upon a time, kids read the Bible in public schools. I think it was in Boston that Catholic families stood up to the requirement that only the Protestant Bible be used. Catholic kids weren’t allowed to read from the complete Catholic Bible.

It wasn’t just “once upon a time.” I’m thinking back to grade school in 1963 in the South. The vast majority of kids in my 6th grade class were either Baptists or Presbyterians. There were a few Lutherans, a few Methodists, and two Catholics - me and another boy. I had just moved with my parents from the North and was placed in public school. Each morning, the teacher would read from the Bible but since it was the KJV, the both of us were asked to leave the classroom each morning and stand outside in the hallway until she was done. At the time, I never heard of the KJV until I asked my parents and they said it was the protestant version of the Bible. They were pretty mad about the teacher sending us out. I only stayed there for the year and was placed in a Catholic school in town. Looking back now, times have changed, but i still think of my 6th-grade teacher as a bigot.

 

[elts1956]

I think it should be seperate but equal. When our forefathers wrote in the seperation of church and state I don’t believe they meant that all religious items should be band from public property. I believe they didn’t want only one state religion or one government religion.
I believe they wanted us to have freedom to choose what religion we want to be affiliated with. I think its a shame that they say that you can’t have any religious items in public places but in D.C. their buildings have religious symbols. The money has In God we trust written on it. But all it takes a one lawsuit against a religious symbol and all of a sudden you can’t have it because it offends someone. This country was founded on Christianity and we should be reminded of it as well as the other religions. If you want the 10 commanments displayed in the frount of the court house it should be allowed as well as something from another religion displayed if they choose to. If they want to display a non-Christian symbol let them there’s nothing that says it has to be seen clearly. And the same for a religious symbol it don’t have to be seen clearly but let it be there. Well thats my opinion on this subject.

Religion and government are to remain separate. The government should not endorse any religion by displays of religious icons, statues, symbols or scenes.

Our country was founded upon a “Utopian Experiment” who’s founders happend to be Christian…at least marginally…many were Diests and subscribed to Thomas Paine’s views. Read some of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

Religions should be able to practice their religious beliefs unless it conflicts with the law of the land…then that group must decide if they wish to engage in civil disobedience and face whatever consequences are met out by the law. The government should not restrict the free expression of religious beliefs…but not allow religious beliefs to trump the rule of law. We are governed by a secular government…not a religious one.

We are not a “Christian nation” we are a nation founded by Christians.

Oh, our nation was founded on judeo christian ethics?

The way I understand it, separation of state and religion means there will be no State or National religion, but all Religions and freedom of conscience will be protected by the Federal Government. Where it gets sticky and may get stickier is if the Federal or State government is in charge of saying what is moral and immoral in a denomination, or Church, such as the polygamy uproar in Az. I don’t condone polygamy, but what else could our government condemn regarding the stances of religions. Such as not allowing some pastors/ministers to condemn actions which are immoral such as active homosexuality, homosexual marriage etc.