When people cry "Separation of church and state!", you say: ______________

[IrishAm]

I say AMEN. Keep the State out of my Church. (But, I would hope the faithful would always be involved in their nation.)

 

[Swan]

Folks need to remember that the establishment clause is designed to view all religions pretty much the same. Not just yours, but those you strongly disagree with as well. For example, the Supreme Ct allowed animal sacrifice for religious rituals. Personally, I find that disgusting. But my right to not be disgusted is trumped by their right to practice their religion. And, as much as I abhor their practices, I prefer freedom - and can’t challenge theirs without putting my own in danger. So what we need to respect is the right of each individual regarding religion, not necessarily their religion itself. Freedom means you get to do it your way, but also that others get to do it their way.

 

[Starwynd]

If America was meant to be a theocracy it would be today. After all, many of the Amendments in the BoR break God’s commandments. For example, freedom of religion breaks the commandment “thou shalt have no other God before me” by allowing people to worship any other deity they wish. Free speech just encourages blasphemy, such as the blasphemy of evolution and the blasphemy of accepting homosexuality as normal and not deviant behavior. Under a theocracy dedicated to God, these things would not be allowed, period. People would not be allowed to be Wiccan or Muslim. People would not be allowed to be atheist that declares there is no God.

 

[rvgirl]

If America was meant to be a theocracy it would be today. After all, many of the Amendments in the BoR break God’s commandments. For example, freedom of religion breaks the commandment “thou shalt have no other God before me” by allowing people to worship any other deity they wish. Free speech just encourages blasphemy, such as the blasphemy of evolution and the blasphemy of accepting homosexuality as normal and not deviant behavior. Under a theocracy dedicated to God, these things would not be allowed, period. People would not be allowed to be Wiccan or Muslim. People would not be allowed to be atheist that declares there is no God.

One problem. God gave us free will. What you talk about not being “allowed” is a dictatorship. God is not a dictator.

You certainly seem to enjoy your right of free speech. Yet, your severity and rule based opinions belong more in a country under Islamic law. Not “allowing” people to do things is exactly what the Islamic run countries embrace.

Trouble is, in those countries you would not have any freedom of speech as a Christian and you wouldn’t be “allowed” to post on this board.

Understand?

 

[Danny_OC]

This comes up all the time with making our kids say the Pledge of Allegiance using the word “God” or having “In God We Trust” in our courts, etc. What is the response?

When people cry “Seaparation of church and state!”, I say:

Where is that in the constitution? You must be thinking of the Soviet Union’s.

 

[wabrams]

I resent your accusation that I have not read his letter when I have. Jefferson believed that religion was a personal matter that government had no business in dabbling in. This is my whole point.

And to GodIsWithUs, I wouldn’t know, since I am pro-life.

The point isn’t whether historically The United States was Christian or what the founding fathers intended. This is a democracy, and one of the fundamental keys to a successful democracy is safeguards against the persecution or marginalization of minorities.

Put simply, our nation is a nation of individuals that contribute to government. Everyone is expected to make these contributions regardless of their religious affiliation, so how could a government pass a law pertaining to religion?

Resent to your hearts content, but what you are saying isn’t consistent with the letters.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Resent to your hearts content, but what you are saying isn’t consistent with the letters.

Then please, say that instead of: “If you had actually read the letters…” This way we can continue to reason with each other.

Here’s the letter:

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Please point out to me what I have said that is not consistent.

 

[wabrams]

Then please, say that instead of: “If you had actually read the letters…” This way we can continue to reason with each other.

Here’s the letter:

Please point out to me what I have said that is not consistent.

How about posting the entire exchange, not just one letter from it; then one is able to put it into context.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

How about posting the entire exchange, not just one letter from it; then one is able to put it into context.

This is the letter I have been referencing, this is the letter that establishes separation between Church and State. The complete exchange consists of only two letters, and can be found here:

classicliberal.tripod.com/jefferson/danbury.html

Perhaps you mean a different series of letters?

 

[Genesis315]

Folks need to remember that the establishment clause is designed to view all religions pretty much the same. Not just yours, but those you strongly disagree with as well. For example, the Supreme Ct allowed animal sacrifice for religious rituals. Personally, I find that disgusting. But my right to not be disgusted is trumped by their right to practice their religion. And, as much as I abhor their practices, I prefer freedom - and can’t challenge theirs without putting my own in danger. So what we need to respect is the right of each individual regarding religion, not necessarily their religion itself. Freedom means you get to do it your way, but also that others get to do it their way.

But, the Supreme Court has not allowed the use of peyote in Native American rites. Polygamy is another practice technically not allowed. There are due limits.

As an aside, under Catholic doctrine there are also due limits to the freedom to practice false religions. The freedom to exercise false religions must be regulated by the needs of the authentic common good (the restrictions or lack thereof that are due vary depending on the circumstances of the society, but generally, given the pluralistic makeup of modern society, the freedom granted should be quite broad.). Of course, the liberty of the Catholic Church to carry out the mission of her Master can never be legitimately hindered.

 

[Genesis315]

The Catholic Church also doesn’t have a problem with established religion as long as the authentic rights of non-Catholics are also protected (in regards to the freedom to practice a false religion, see my post above.)

 

[wabrams]

This is the letter I have been referencing, this is the letter that establishes separation between Church and State. The complete exchange consists of only two letters, and can be found here:

classicliberal.tripod.com/jefferson/danbury.html

Perhaps you mean a different series of letters?

It does not establish a seperagtion between chruch and state; it merely says the government will not establish a religion. Second, it can’t establish anything b/c it is a personal correspondence, not a court decision or a piece of legislation.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

It does not establish a seperagtion between chruch and state; it merely says the government will not establish a religion. Second, it can’t establish anything b/c it is a personal correspondence, not a court decision or a piece of legislation.

You are correct, it does not establish anything, it is only a letter. I misused the word, I meant to say that this is the letter that people refer to when establishing a separation between Church and State.

I do maintain my original point that Jefferson believed that religion was a personal matter between an individual and his god, and I think I haven’t misrepresented the letter in this way, as you so insinuated.

 

[wabrams]

You are correct, it does not establish anything, it is only a letter. I misused the word, I meant to say that this is the letter that people refer to when establishing a separation between Church and State.

Agreed.

I do maintain my original point that Jefferson believed that religion was a personal matter between an individual and his god, and I think I haven’t misrepresented the letter in this way, as you so insinuated.

My belief is you, as well as everyone else who calls for seperation of church and state, misuse this letter and make more out of it than what it is.

 

[sidonius]

You are correct, it does not establish anything, it is only a letter. I misused the word, I meant to say that this is the letter that people refer to when establishing a separation between Church and State.

I do maintain my original point that Jefferson believed that religion was a personal matter between an individual and his god, and I think I haven’t misrepresented the letter in this way, as you so insinuated.

Jefe, thanks for posting the letter. Jefferson’s opinion was personal. Certainly, the First Amendment prevented the establishment of a state religion at the federal level, while doing nothing to disestablish the official religions of the several states that had them. The Nothwest Ordinance, a federal law, provided for religion to be taught in the new Northwest Territories, however.

 

[Scholastic17]

“Read the Syllabus of Errors.”

(It is heresy that) In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. – Ibid.

Syllabus of Errors.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Society does not need God or even religion to look toward for morality. Morality existed before religion, and there are numerous examples of religion acting against morality.

First religion does not act - people act -and often people act in ways that are contrary to their religious beliefs - though they try to cloak them in the garb of their religion. But we need to keep that in mind.

Now the question: How do you know what is moral? Who determines that? What if you disagree with someone on what is moral–who do you appeal to to find out which of you is right?

I would argue that morality - like our inalienable rights (as Jefferson so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence) comes from our Creator. Indeed much of what is moral stems from these inalienable rights.

It is a dangerous thing when man/the state determine our rights and our morality. What the state given the state taketh away–when man and the state give you the right to life - you may not be able to count on that right–as they found out in Germany.

So I would be interested to know just how you determine what is moral?

Thank you

 

[Highwayhound]

In God we trust…

 

[MarkInOregon]

This is a democracy, and one of the fundamental keys to a successful democracy is safeguards against the persecution or marginalization of minorities.

Actually, I think if you check, we are a constitutional republic and I believe that is how the problems of democracy–of majority rule-- are tempered in the United States. Strickly speaking you could probably argue that we may fit the definition of a “democracy” but when you say that – people don’t really think of representative government like we have - they think more in terms of majority rule - and our constitution is supposed to protect minorities from the majority.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Folks need to remember that the establishment clause is designed to view all religions pretty much the same. Not just yours, but those you strongly disagree with as well. For example, the Supreme Ct allowed animal sacrifice for religious rituals. Personally, I find that disgusting. But my right to not be disgusted is trumped by their right to practice their religion. And, as much as I abhor their practices, I prefer freedom - and can’t challenge theirs without putting my own in danger. So what we need to respect is the right of each individual regarding religion, not necessarily their religion itself. Freedom means you get to do it your way, but also that others get to do it their way.

While I would agree with what you say - we do as a society - draw a line at certain practices. I don’t believe you can sacrifice people under the guise of religious freedom. In Oregon there is currently a debate going on regarding the practice of withholding medical care from children and rather than seeing a doctor praying over them - I think the religion is losing that case. So we do restrict religious freedom in someways do we not?