Separation – church and state

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YourNameHere

Guest
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."

Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 1, 1802
 
Written by a man who pasted together his own Bible and supported the bloody French Revolution.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Lots of folks (especially on the Left) talk about the separation of church and state as if it’s a one way “barrier” preventing religion from impacting government. The founders actually intended it to protect the church from government overreach. Not the other way around.
 
Freedom of religion and freedom from a state sanctioned religion
 
It wasn’t such a revolutionary idea. The Maryland Toleration Act had been in place since colonial times, guaranteeing religious freedom there. TJ was no pioneer.
 
Ah, yes. You realize it was a private letter of correspondence, right?
 
YourNameHere said:
Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 1, 1802
Click to expand...
Let’s be clear: Tom the slaveholder who wrote “all men are created equal”, was the lunatic fringe on the issue of church & state. His views were very much not mainstream among the Founding Fathers.

The Establishment Clause is not a non-religious principal, or a requirement that the government not advance religion, but a requirement of neutrality between Christian sects by the federal government, such that it could not establish, for example, the Methodist church as the official church of the US and tax the Presbyterians to fund it. (We could have a separate debate as to whether neutrality between Protestantism and Catholicism or Judaism was required.)

It in no way bound the states, which could and did have state churches. In fact, four continued to do so for decades after the Civil War and Fourteenth Amendment.

By normal US Constitutional jurisprudence, it should not apply to the state governments: the test for application of the Bill of Rights to the states is whether the matter is “fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty” (which was just used by the USSC a week or two ago!). Thus criticism of the government is protected, while a state may use a preliminary hearing rather than a grand jury. (note that Free Exercise is fundamental).

Properly understood, there is no bar to the federal government advancing religious belief, or even general Christianity.
Cruciferi said:
Written by a man who pasted together his own Bible and supported the bloody French Revolution.
Click to expand...
with scissors. He simply cut out the miracles . . .

hawk, esq.
 
Actually, the phrase from the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” prohibits the Federal government from creating a national religious establishment. At the time the Constitution was ratified, several states had established religions and it was not unconstitutional as the amendment only effects the federal government, not the separate states.

In addition, as has been pointed out many times in many places, the constitution is not to limit the rights of the people, but of the federal government.

Patrick
AMDG
 
As were most of the Founding Fathers, a fact which seems to be overlooked quite often. Not that I, personally, have any problem with the Masons, but there are those whomst do.
 
Sbee0 said:
Lots of folks (especially on the Left) talk about the separation of church and state as if it’s a one way “barrier” preventing religion from impacting government. The founders actually intended it to protect the church from government overreach. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
The Framers certainly had both directions in mind, but fundamentally what inspired them were the English Test Act, where Catholics and Non-conformists had effectively been punished by being denied public office. They were also a lot closer to the Thirty Years War than we are, and were all too well aware of the poisonous political atmosphere that can occur when Church and State become entwined. And finally, they were Enlightenment men, and in particular, adherents to John Locke’s notion of secularism, where each man is responsible for his own salvation, and the State had no business intruding on it, and by extension no one should be able to use the powers of the State to intrude on their neighbor’s salvation.
 
CCHcolonel said:
Biggest lie ever told. The peak of civilization occurred when crown and church worked together for the betterment of their countrymen.
Click to expand...
How you define the “peak” here? That seems circular. The greatest leaps in human productivity, wealth and happiness most certainly occurred during and after the Enlightenment, and after all those nasty wars that were largely caused by the entwinement of religion and politics.

I will concede that the Carolingian Era was a highly productive period (hence the notion of the Carolingian Renaissance). But it was pretty darn brief, and largely required that Rome subjugate itself to the Emperor. Within a century or so of Charlemagne’s death, the Church began to intrude a great deal more upon the temporal affairs of princes, leading to a protracted series of squabbles that, in my estimation, laid the groundwork for the Reformation.
 
CCHcolonel said:
Biggest lie ever told. The peak of civilization occurred when crown and church worked together for the betterment of their countrymen.
Click to expand...
As long as all countrymen were the same faith as the church. The problem is how to have a fair and just society in a multicultural and multi faith society today?
 
phoage said:
In addition, as has been pointed out many times in many places, the constitution is not to limit the rights of the people, but of the federal government.
Click to expand...
Yes, the ‘wall’ is one way, really more of a diode than a wall. It blocks govt control of religion but doesn’t stop religion having an impact on governance.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
CCHcolonel:
Biggest lie ever told. The peak of civilization occurred when crown and church worked together for the betterment of their countrymen.
Click to expand...
As long as all countrymen were the same faith as the church. The problem is how to have a fair and just society in a multicultural and multi faith society today?
Click to expand...
That’s the issue.

The fusion of Church and state is a GREAT idea…

As long as it’s my Church.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
phoage:
In addition, as has been pointed out many times in many places, the constitution is not to limit the rights of the people, but of the federal government.
Click to expand...
Yes, the ‘wall’ is one way, really more of a diode than a wall. It blocks govt control of religion but doesn’t stop religion having an impact on governance.
Click to expand...
But that impact must be measured. Government, and that includes the members of that government, are entrusted with the public good; that is the WHOLE public good, and there’s not the intention that they use their high offices to force everyone into narrow religiously-inspired laws. The Founding Fathers were children of the Enlightenment, and believed in Reason, and believed American was a Reasonable country that should be governed by Reasonable men.
 
I think you are implying that religious morality is irrational, nice atheist…
 
AlbMagno said:
I think you are implying that religious morality is irrational, nice atheist…
Click to expand...
It is.

Now, I’m not willing to suggest that’s a bad thing. But supernatural ideas are not rational ones. They are predicated upon things that can’t be proven to exist.

And, again, so are all kinds of aspects of humanism.

Just trying to present a fair view, here.
 
Rational isn’t the same as empirical. Many elements of catholic theology can be proven through reason (see Natural Theology) and the moral system would just follow.

Of course, Faith is the primary engine behind our beliefs, but that doesn’t exclude reason from being there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top