Separation of Church and State

[swansont]

I'm pulling these quotes from the Stupid Liberal SOB thread, so as to not derail it

 

John Cuthber; Separation of Church and State, is NOT and has NEVER been part of the Constitution. The term itself was taken from a letter, attributed by some to Jefferson. What does separate, in effect the two, is our 1st A, which is part of the Constitution and forbids the Federal Government from establishing a State Religion.

 

 

From what I understand Jefferson specified one practical aplication of the first amendment in his letter (and BTW is there any reason to believe that it was NOT from Jefferson?). It is true that the precise wording are not in the constitution, though.

 

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.

 

 

My link

 

In fact, there is further evidence that it is not merely intended to prohibit the creation of a state religion:

 

Modern constitutional conservatives, such as Chief Justice William Rehnquist (in his 1985 dissent to Wallace v. Jaffree), often argue that the First Amendment meant only to prohibit establishing a national church, while permitting government to pursue other engagements with religion. But this position is hard to reconcile with the fact that Congress, in writing the Amendment, specifically rejected narrow language merely forbidding a national church.

 

In June 1789 Congress declined a proposal from James Madison for a constitutional amendment about religion that said, “nor shall any national religion be established.” In September 1789, Congress rejected several additional proposals for a narrow religion amendment. These would have prohibited establishing “one religious sect or society in preference to others,” or “establishing any religious sect or society,” or “establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.”

 

 

 

My link

 

 

I think saying that separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution is like saying that right to own a gun is not there, either. If I were to propose the latter, I would probably be laughed out of whatever thread where I had posted it. The exact phrase isn't there, but the sentiment is.

[jackson33]

CharonY; Jefferson in trying to defend the intent of religious freedom, used the term 'wall', later Madison used the term 'line' and currently neither term is used. IMHO, I don't think either meant that Church and State were separable anymore than humans can make decisions void of their personal convictions, religious or not. Then actually Madison was involved in the writing of the Constitution and the selling of (Federalist Papers), while Jefferson was then in France. I was simply trying to offer a factual point, that there is "nothing" in the Constitution authorizing a literal separation, rather than the mentioned restriction of Federal Power to impose. I base this on the times, when the "Church of England" was the OFFICIAL Church of England and the opposition to that, to accomplish this then a secular Federal Government. [/Quote]

 

 

What CharonY was replying to was my post (above), to keep this in context.

 

I think saying that separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution is like saying that right to own a gun is not there, either. If I were to propose the latter, I would probably be laughed out of whatever thread where I had posted it. The exact phrase isn't there, but the sentiment is.[/Quote]

 

Charon, I agree and the reason I went through some of the history. Just as the right to bear arms has a foundation, so does restricting Religious practice by Government have a foundation. If you want a barrier (wall/line), it's protection from Government, not an entitlement from Government. I believe John felt the literal "separation" was in the Constitution and it's simply not. In fact when discussing "Right to bear arms", I try to link it to protecting private property and not necessarily through the second amendment. Militia's were set up to protect the State and it's people (Property)

[nec209]

The US has never been 100% separation of church and state. You can not get in power if you a Atheist.The US has always been religious.The Republican push it alot and Democratic try to keep it out of government.

 

Look at the evolution debate in school ,money in god we trust and Pledge of Allegiance so on are very hot topics now.

 

Just like in Canada separation of church and state but is not 100% .It is conplex problem do to the people before the 60's where very religious and it plays a big part in government and history.

 

It only now we have different beliefs and all that.It was very very very big taboo to say you are Atheist before the 60's .Still is now but not so much before the 60's.

 

 

The US has more separation of church and state than in Canada but it is not 100% separation of church and state.In the UK and France atheist is okay and not a taboo like in Canada or the US.

 

I don't think any country in the world is 100% separation of church and state other than the communist countries that gone to the opposite extreme.

Edited November 4, 2010 by nec209

[Pangloss]

I think that's largely the case.

 

Do you think it should be changed in some way?

[swansont]

The US has never been 100% separation of church and state. You can not get in power if you a Atheist.The US has always been religious.The Republican push it alot and Democratic try to keep it out of government.

 

Look at the evolution debate in school ,money in god we trust and Pledge of Allegiance so on are very hot topics now.

 

Just like in Canada separation of church and state but is not 100% .It is conplex problem do to the people before the 60's where very religious and it plays a big part in government and history.

 

It only now we have different beliefs and all that.It was very very very big taboo to say you are Atheist before the 60's .Still is now but not so much before the 60's.

 

 

The US has more separation of church and state than in Canada but it is not 100% separation of church and state.In the UK and France atheist is okay and not a taboo like in Canada or the US.

 

I don't think any country in the world is 100% separation of church and state other than the communist countries that gone to the opposite extreme.

 

I don't think anyone has claimed it's 100%, but there is a separation. It isn't absolute, just as there are forms of speech that are not protected and you can't possess nuclear arms.

 

AFAIK the "evolution debate in school" has ultimately been decided against teaching religion every time it has gone through the courts in the US. Same with school-led prayer, for that matter.

[nec209]

The reason why there still evolution debate like the stem cell,cloning and genetic engineering debate is people in government and average person on the street would not even understand grade 7 science.Do to the school now are daycare now and push people along even if they don't understand what they are learning.The media and goverment also keeps dumbing down the people.

[Pangloss]

The reason why there still evolution debate like the stem cell,cloning and genetic engineering debate is people in government and average person on the street would not even understand grade 7 science.Do to the school now are daycare now and push people along even if they don't understand what they are learning.The media and goverment also keeps dumbing down the people.

 

I think you'll find a lot of support for those arguments here at SFN.

 

In what ways do you feel that the government is dumbing-down the people? (Not that I disagree.)

[john5746]

 

I don't think any country in the world is 100% separation of church and state other than the communist countries that gone to the opposite extreme.

 

Separation of church and state is in place to provide freedom of religious belief. Communist or other dictatorial states are not on the opposite extreme, they are an example of the extreme where state mandates belief.

[nec209]

I think you'll find a lot of support for those arguments here at SFN.

 

In what ways do you feel that the government is dumbing-down the people? (Not that I disagree.)

 

 

When I was in school I wanted to take science the teacher was saying science is not main subject like before.My parents got so mad when school drop spelling and grammar has teacher was saying it more imported kids express their thought even if it is bad.

 

My friend is in college and there are people very weak in English in the class.When I was in grade 7 my parents got so mad when the teacher would not teach multiplication table saying I do not need it.

 

 

In high school my self and many others in the class had trouble to keep up with work !! The teacher was saying I would love to spend more time but the government feels the next day you have learn this and the teacher was saying I would love more power than government feeding all this information in short time many cannot take this all in.

 

When comes to schools the space program the republican do cutbacks like they do cutbacks in projects and research.

 

 

Now I have to get my GED now.

Edited November 7, 2010 by nec209

[jackson33]

nec; It's difficult for me to figure where you are from, but if your in the US what's taught and how is primarily a local issue. I'd like to know which State your from or if not in the US what Country and about how long ago you quit school (needing a GED)?

 

Republicans generally believe k-12 education should remain a local issue and both parties have played with Science and NASA programs. NASA in fact first appeared under Eisenhower, who was a Republican.

 

Are you going to prepare for your GED test or try it on your own? There are many ways to study for a GED, probably some free and it's always a good idea to refresh what you learned in school and getting that GED is an admirable objective, well worth some time to prepare for.

[John Cuthber]

" You can not get in power if you a Atheist."

Why not?

Is it a constitutional bar or just that people wouldn't vote for you?

[jackson33]

" You can not get in power if you a Atheist."

 

Why not?

 

Is it a constitutional bar or just that people wouldn't vote for you? [/Quote]

 

Even by percentages in the US, 10-15 Atheist, up to 85% Agnostic to very religious, very few people have ever been elected as an Atheist. It happens now and then and several will argue historically some Presidents were in fact Atheist, but IMO are simply wrong.

 

No John, it's not a "Constitutional Bar" rather the voting society, whom seem to prefer their politicians believe in something higher than themselves.

[ewmon]

The exact phrase isn't there, but the sentiment is.

So you're pointing to "the spirit of the law" as compared to "the letter of the law".

 

Regarding separation of church and state, let me offer a real-life example. At an early time in Massachusetts, the churches couldn't decide together on how often to observe the Lord's Supper (bread and wine) -- every Sunday, or every other Sunday, or once a month, or etc. So they agreed to ask Governor Winthrop (who served on and off between 1630 and 1649) for his opinion on it. Today, a governor ordering or even suggesting operational details for churches (or temples or mosques) simply would not happen.

 

You can not get in power if you a Atheist.

Americans are largely religious (mostly some form of Christianity) and moral, and they hold their elected officials to high moral standards. So it make sense that they would want fellow believers in office ... especially in the Bible Belt states.

[swansont]

So you're pointing to "the spirit of the law" as compared to "the letter of the law".

 

 

I'm not sure it's even that. More toward the equivocation-like argument, when in spoken discourse, someone draws a distinction between

 

1. separation of church and state is not in the constitution

and

2. "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution

 

but without noting that they are using the stealth quote marks. It's a convenient backtrack for spin, as when Christine O'Donnell did it recently, but I think that it's disingenuous.

[John Cuthber]

"Americans are largely religious (mostly some form of Christianity) and moral, and they hold their elected officials to high moral standards. So it make sense that they would want fellow believers in office ... especially in the Bible Belt states. "

 

Would that still hold if they realised that morality has nothing to do with religion?

 

Not to mention "they hold their elected officials to high moral standards."

ROFL

Edited November 8, 2010 by John Cuthber

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

" You can not get in power if you a Atheist."

Why not?

Is it a constitutional bar or just that people wouldn't vote for you?

 

It's a constitutional bar in some states.

 

http://www.myfoxhous...tution-governor

 

and according to this site:

 

http://www.godlessge...stitutions2.htm

 

A. The Arkansas State Constitution, Article XIX, Section 1. "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

[Pangloss]

Would that still hold if they realised that morality has nothing to do with religion?

 

As far as the American electorate is concerned, I've always felt that their religion question is mostly about predicting a candidate's behavior. To put it in scientific terms, a candidate's religious status operationalizes the morality variable, providing a measurable quantity that voters can use to inform their choice.

 

And don't think the details on that front go un-noticed. I'm quite sure that many religious Americans are familiar with President Obama's sparse church attendance record.

 

Note that I'm not saying that any of this makes good sense. It makes some sense, in a very limited way, but IMO it's not a very useful way to measure a candidate.

 

A. The Arkansas State Constitution, Article XIX, Section 1. "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

 

Because of the witness thing that sounds like one of those unenforced laws you always hear about.

[swansont]

The Arkansas provision, and any others like it, are unconstitutional and unenforceable under Torcaso v. Watkins

[D H]

Regarding separation of church and state, let me offer a real-life example. At an early time in Massachusetts, the churches couldn't decide together on how often to observe the Lord's Supper (bread and wine) -- every Sunday, or every other Sunday, or once a month, or etc.  So they agreed to ask Governor Winthrop (who served on and off between 1630 and 1649) for his opinion on it. Today, a governor ordering or even suggesting operational details for churches (or temples or mosques) simply would not happen.

<br>Colonial Massachusetts is anything but a shining example of separation of church and state. The Pilgrims and Puritans didn't come to America to escape religious persecution. They came here so they could perform religious persecution (something mother England didn't particularly like). Early colonial Massachusetts was a full-blown theocracy up until the late 1600s, and remained a theocracy to a lesser extent until 1833.<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>

The Arkansas provision, and any others like it, are unconstitutional and unenforceable under <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488" class="bbc_url" title="External link" rel="nofollow external">Torcaso v. Watkins</a>

<br><div>Beat me to it.<br><br>While courts can declare some law unconstitutional, they cannot remove said law from the books. Removing a law from the books is the sole purview of the legislature that created the law.<br><br>Now suppose you are a state legislator in Arkansas. Are you going to propose an act to revoke the law that precludes atheists from holding public office, working as civil servants, or testifying in court, or are you going to hold your nose and just let that law slide into unenforceable oblivion? If you do the former you have just given up any chance of being reelected. You might not know this, but every other legislator does; your proposal will never go anywhere.<br><br>States and the federal government have an untold number of ancient laws on the books that can no longer be enforced because the Supreme Court has found those laws to be unconstitutional.

 

</div>

 

</div>

 

===============================

 

OK! What is the deal with this utterly atrocious formatting nonsense that this new forum software sometimes creates?

Edited November 8, 2010 by D H

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

OK! What is the deal with this utterly atrocious formatting nonsense that this new forum software sometimes creates?

Hm. What web-browser were you using? Did you copy/paste any of your post from somewhere else (another program or site)?

[D H]

Hm. What web-browser were you using? Did you copy/paste any of your post from somewhere else (another program or site)?

OS X 10.6.4, Safari 5.0.2, clicked the edit button. This kind of ugliness happens quite often. The new software inserts/deletes a random newline, I click on edit to fix it, I get garbage. Except I use words a tad shorter than garbage, typically words with the same number of letters as 'ugly' and 'mess' to describe the result.

 

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

OS X 10.6.4, Safari 5.0.2, clicked the edit button. This kind of ugliness happens quite often. The new software inserts/deletes a random newline, I click on edit to fix it, I get garbage. Except I use words a tad shorter than garbage, typically words with the same number of letters as 'ugly' and 'mess' to describe the result.

Okay, I'll add this to my list of things to check once we upgrade to the latest version of the software. If you notice any common factors that lead to this, let me know so I can file a bug if it persists on upgrade.

[jackson33]

Overview:

 

Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states:

 

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

 

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, proclaimed adopted on 1868-JUL-21, states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

 

The important feature of the 14th Amendment was that the banning of a religious test and the free exercise of religion which were formerly applied only to Congress became applicable also to the states.

 

However, many states had clauses in their Constitutions and Bills of Rights that required religious tests for political candidates, for witnesses and jurors at criminal trials, and for employment in the civil service.

 

The conflict between the religiously restrictive policies of the states and the elimination of such policies by the U.S. constitution was settled in favor of religious freedom by the U.S. Supreme court in a 1961 case Torcaso v Watkins.

 

Unfortunately, many states still have bigoted, religiously discriminatory clauses remaining in their Constitution and/or Bills of Rights. Although they are now null and void, they still hang about in these states' founding documents and teach modern-day citizens that Atheists and non-Judeo Christians should be considered second-class citizens.

 

Since the repeal of these clauses would require the majority vote of the states' citizens, they will probably remain in place for decades to come. [/Quote]

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas1.htm

 

This link also gives a good summery of the 1961 case Torcaso v Watkins. As Pangloss suggest, any current laws whether in a State Constitution of not is NOT enforceable and where States require a vote to change their Constitution, it's not likely to pass anyway.

 

Since Atheism is considered a Religion in itself, any legal case where religion is an issue, it would be handled as any other religion.

 

 

 

Whomever;

On the gibberish problem, know it's not related, but often when I try downloading a list of something, I get the same thing. Since I use an off site note pad, usually I simply cut out the arrows and re aline into the list, which works just fine.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Since Atheism is considered a Religion in itself, any legal case where religion is an issue, it would be handled as any other religion.

Do you know of any court precedent in which atheism has been deemed a religion?

[jackson33]

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.[/Quote]

 

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

 

There are at least two appeal courts saying the same thing....

 

In "Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)", "Secular Humanism, and others" is generally accepted has meaning Atheism and most folks accept a non belief in a God as Atheism. Beyond that, short of another approach to be heard by SCOTUS, Atheism is a religion under law, IMO, often used as precedence.

 

For another review of the 1961 case;

 

Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)

 

Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty

http://askville.amazon.com/case-SCOTUS-rule-Atheism-religion/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=58057495