Posted: 10/14/2009 9:46:05 AM EDT
|
Below is a quote from the web regarding the title of this thread. I am hoping to at least open a few eyes and spread a little good information. I do not intend to mediate or moderate this thread but I would like some honest and thought provoking discussion...
Yes, I know this is ARFCom, but this is not a .45 vs 9mm, beans or no beans, or abortion debate. Technically it is about the constitution, I guess. Oh, why am I posting this really? I just keep seeing "Separation of Church and State" used in the wrong context much too often. When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.
There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it. This quote pretty much states my understanding, right or wrong. What do you think? Please corect me if I am wrong. Let the games begin... ByteTheBullet (-: |
|
This discussion should not take place without this in plain view IMHO... 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. Carry on... |
| In England it was considered treason not to go to church. The head of the Church of England was the king or queen. Not going to church to pray for them was considered treason and punishable by death. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and simply tried to put an end to such stuff. There would never be a Church of America with the President in charge of it. That is all that simple statement means. This has since be warped into the "separation of church and state" phenomena. If the Second Amendment had been warped as much as that simple statement we could all have our own nukes. |
|
Quoted:
This discussion should not take place without this in plain view IMHO...
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. Carry on... Yeah, I could have/should have added that, thanks! ByteTheBullet (-: |
|
As anyone who has read my posts throughout the years here knows, I am not a religious person. I don't believe any human religion is based on reality and I don't believe that the Creator of this universe, if there is such a being, either needs or wants our worship nor does this being care how we live our lives. That said, I don't hate religion and I don't hate Christianity. I think Christianity on the whole has had a positive influence on history and civilization.
I have to say, the people who distorted the interpretation of the First Amendment to mean that the government can have no involvement whatsoever with religion to the point of forbidding Christmas decorations on public property really do hate religion. |
|
Not how I see it. If the government decides to use the morals of a specific religion for whatever reasons, it has taken that religion as its own. It should be meant as a rule to keep the government from favoring one religion over another in any official capacity, to keep them from forcing people of a specific religion to convert or be exiled/discriminated against and also to keep any specific religion from getting government-related perks other religions don't get. |
|
Quoted:
Not how I see it. If the government decides to use the morals of a specific religion for whatever reasons, it has taken that religion as its own. It should be meant as a rule to keep the government from favoring one religion over another in any official capacity, to keep them from forcing people of a specific religion to convert or be exiled/discriminated against and also to keep any specific religion from getting government-related perks other religions don't get. By the bolded statement you aren't thinking very hard about religions and their morals. Every religion, and sects of each religion will practice different sets of morals. For instance, many christian denominations believe that drinking alcohol is immoral, I am a follower of Christ, but I do not recognize the biblical evidence used to declare drinking alcohol a "sin." Does that mean that prohibition is a christian moral? There is a lot of disagreement in nearly every religion about many things that are considered immoral. For instance there are a few denominations within christianity that recognize homosexual marriage, however, most would say that it isn't christian to be a homosexual. All christians would recognize murder as murder and declare it immoral, and stealing as stealing and declare it immoral, whereas other denominations would say that it is ok to setup a welfare state when that is clearly stealing, etc. There are many muslims that believe the practice of Jihad is not true to the teachings/texts of the Quran and Hadith, and would declare the killing of innocents immoral (duh, right). So there are black and white areas that very few people would disagree with over morality. And there are many gray areas that there is much disagreement about over what is moral/immoral. My point is this, a person's religion doesn't necessarily dictate exactly what their morals are, however, most religions would recognize some universal morality, that would include not murdering, not stealing, etc. People have their own ideas about what is right and wrong regardless of what religion they are, so your statement that I bolded really doesn't hold true. For instance, in Kalifornia, the most liberal state in the union, voted against gay marriage. Are you going to tell me that over half of the voters in Kalifornia are devout christians, or are many of them just don't like the idea of gays being married (I am not endorsing/opposing homosexual marriage, I am just stating some food for thought). I do, however, recognize the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as pretty blatantly stating that, for instance, congress cannot come out and say that September 30th is Methodist day, and everyone should attend a methodist church on that day or be subject to a fine. That would clearly be unconstitutional. I also believe that forced prayer in public school is clearly unconstitutional. I certainly wouldn't mind it for my kids, but I recognize that not everyone wants their kids to be exposed to that if they are of a different religion or no religion, they have the freedom to choose, the .gov doesn't have the freedom to force that upon other people's children. Likewise, they do not have the legal ability to force my kids to pray to Alah seven times a day, etc. It is unconstitutional to use federal funds to give to a church, or to setup a religious symbol. I don't see a big deal, for instance of the government allowing someone to setup a cross on public land during easter. There is no federal fund being spent and there is no law being passed endorsing that religion, just permission being given to someone to exercise/proclaim their faith. The people that blow their gasket at stuff like that are just clearly anti religious. |
|
One thing many don't realize (probably because it isn't taught these days) is how influential the pastors of American churches were in the days leading up to and during the Revolution.
The battle cry, "No king but Jesus!" was common. Pastors preached lengthy, impassioned sermons for the cause of Liberty. Pastors led and inspired men during the American Revolution. If today's twist on "separation of church and state" existed back then, we would probably not have the United States as we know it. The current muzzle on churches when it comes to political speech was a product of Lyndon Johnson. He produced the regulations as they are now to silence churches that were critical of him. My positions on this issue are: 1. The government must keep its nose out of church business. 2. Churches must be an instrument of good in our communities. If they were forced to keep their activities within the church walls, they could not serve their ultimate purpose. 3. I believe the pastor of a church should be free to expound on whatever topic he wants, including political issues. After all, involvement in political issues shapes our society. 4. I reject the notion that I must separate my faith from my political activity. My faith provides my values. My values guide the way I vote. I cannot compartmentalize these parts of who I am. I am an integrated, whole person. I will not behave one way in church and another way in the voting booth. I will not throw up my hands in surrender and sheepishly concede the society my children will grow up in to those who have values contrary to mine. |
|
Then what “morality” should the Government use? Morality is inherently a religious concept. Morality is essentially you suppressing your desires, needs, wants, and nature in order to conform to some higher standard. And that means you are putting above your self. Whatever that something is becomes your “religion.”
Personally, I think that the people in Government should use their religious beliefs when deciding how to govern. And, no matter what people “should” do, they will do it because it’s the nature of people to do so. In fact, it’s impossible not to do so. Take one of the current popular religions, Ecofreakism. According to the Ecofreak religion, it’s offensive to the great god “Environment” to “waste” water. So, when you don’t use a low flow showerhead or when you leave the water running while brushing your teeth, you are sinning against Environment. The Ecofreak religion has even managed to pass Federal laws to ban working toilets and shower heads. Now, I disagree with their morality, I disagree that the Federal Government has the legitimate power to enforce these laws, but I accept the right of the Ecofreaks to promote their religious agenda. In fact, if you accept that religious thought doesn’t belong in government, then you’ve allowed any thought to be banned from government. (And maybe that’s part of the problem.) For example, a public school music class probably couldn’t get away with having kids sing, “Jesus loves the little Children.” But, could they have kids sing, “You ain’t nothin but a hound dog?” Many people would claim that the Jesus song is religious and should be banned while the Elvis song isn’t religious… But what about the Cult of Elvis? How come Christians can’t sing songs that are religious to them but the Elvisites can sing their religious songs? Well, the Cult of Elvis isn’t a real religion, it’s a joke… But who is the Government to say what religion is, and isn’t a joke? The way I see it, the First Amendment prohibits them from doing so. By declaring Christianity a “real” religion, they’ve made it an official religion. And banning Elvis from public property wouldn’t be enough. Anyone can claim to worship anything. And we all know that our current President has a fair number of worshipers, should he be banned from Government… Well, yes. But not because he’s a religious figure, because he’s an idiot Socialist. And that leads me to believe that religious speech and beliefs should be treated exactly like any other speech or belief. If printed T-Shirts are allowed in a school then the state has no business regulating the content of those t-shirts. If students can bring in books then they should be allowed to bring the Bible, the Koran, and Earth in the Balance if they choose. If a judge can display the lyrics to “Jailhouse Rock” on his courtroom wall then he can display the Ten Commandments. |
|
I believe that the separation of church and state is more important now than it has been in a very long time. The growing diversity of religious positions practically requires that .gov be a bit more detached so that when people of different religious perspectives enjoy equal representation under the law. |
|
Quoted:
Below is a quote from the web regarding the title of this thread. I am hoping to at least open a few eyes and spread a little good information. I do not intend to mediate or moderate this thread but I would like some honest and thought provoking discussion... Yes, I know this is ARFCom, but this is not a .45 vs 9mm, beans or no beans, or abortion debate. Technically it is about the constitution, I guess. Oh, why am I posting this really? I just keep seeing "Separation of Church and State" used in the wrong context much too often. When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.
There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it. This quote pretty much states my understanding, right or wrong. What do you think? Please corect me if I am wrong. Let the games begin... ByteTheBullet (-: Part in red is very important. The first sentence of the First Amendment serves two purposes: To prevent the government from endorsing/supporting a specific religion and to prevent the government from prohibiting people from exercising the religion of their choice. The Federal Government of today in no way resembles what existed when this document was written. If it uses its vast coffers of taxpayers' money to endorse a specific religion by financially supporting it or by using public property to the exclusive benefit of one religion, that entails a violation of the Constitution. While many people do misunderstand the intent of the First Amendment when it comes to keeping religion entirely away from the government, it is equally misunderstood by others who claim their right to exercise their religion is somehow 'prohibited' because they can't put a nativity scene in the courthouse, hang a cross in the courtroom, or teach children their religion in a public school classroom. |
|
If anyone can show me the "Freedom from religion" clause or the "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, I'd greatly appreciate it. "In God We Trust" on our money and football players saying a prayer before a game does not force me to be a Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew, a Buddhist, etc....it doesn't even make me religious. If you don't like the Pledge of Allegiance because God was added to it...then keep your seat. If you don't worship God, then don't bow your head. They teach kids foreign languages too....doesn't make them turn into frenchmen or spaniards, does it?
roy d...amazing how we can muck up such a simple concept |
|
" It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. "
I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... |
|
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 until Congress feels the need to protect the People.
|
| Your pretty much on the money. The initial setting of the US was in part Calvinst escaping England. They felt the Church of England was still too Pope-ish. That said, any religion that relies on the "Theology of the Believer" would have trouble with centralized state religion. As such, decentralizing religion (via the Amendment) is a very specific (Calvinistic/Presbyterian, but adopted my many protestants) religious belief embedded into our Constitution. |
|
Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Read it. That's what Jefferson had in mind. And that's why Jefferson himself believed that bill was one of the three most significant documents he ever wrote. Too bad a few foolish Justices cherry-picked a single phrase from Jefferson's entire life's work and used it completely out of context to foist their own warped antagonistic view of religion on the nation. |
|
Quoted:
One thing many don't realize (probably because it isn't taught these days) is how influential the pastors of American churches were in the days leading up to and during the Revolution. A close examination of the church-state separation issue reveals that it was fought for with blood. And it was a very important issue to our Founding Fathers. Churches took/take freedom of speech very seriously. Right now, it is against "hate crime" laws in Canada and Sweden to say "Homosexuality is a sin..." At CHURCH! It is against the law in China to say "Goverment is FOR the pople..." At CHURCH! Even in America, there are folks who are pushing for more government control of religion. In England, my church, the LDS church, was recently taken to court when gay people attempted (they had planned it) to enter the LDS Temple in London. The anti-Mormon gay folks won in court when it was "proven" that the LDS church discriminated against gay people when they were denied entry. Now the LDS church is benig forced by the government to pay property tax on the property the LDS Temple resides at in London... The courts reasoning... By not accepting gay people in the Temple, the LDS church violated English laws on being a "religion." Only churches that accept gay people can be defined as a "religion" in England. Keep in mind that everyone (gays included) are invited to come to church at LDS meeting houses, but the Temple is open only to those obeying *all* of the commandments... Always has been. If you are cheating on your spouse, you cannot enter the Temple, if you are not honest, or whatever, you cannot enter the Temple. Always has been that way... But the gay agenda folks wanted to force their teachings into LDS theology, and were denied, they got upset, and tried using the government to impose their force on the LDS church, and tragically, the government won, now, under English law, the LDS church is not considered a "religion" because it denies access to its holiest edifice to homosexuals... That is the issue right now in America with church-state separation. The issue is that churches continue to preach against homosexuality, and other hyper-liberal standards, and that *really* bothers hyper-liberals. The hyper-liberals are *really* upset right now that churches utilize the power of the pulpit to teach and preach sacred doctrine that contradicts their liberal propaganda. That is the church-state separation issue right now in the United States. The hyper-liberals want to control the ability (it worked in Canada, ~England, China, and Sweden) to control the information being preached from pulpits... And churches have been highly effective... Going back to Colonial times... In being able to motivate their people to moral action. And that bothers hyper-liberals. And the church state separation issue right now in America is that churches are teaching their people to take action on moral issues at the polls... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
One thing many don't realize (probably because it isn't taught these days) is how influential the pastors of American churches were in the days leading up to and during the Revolution. A close examination of the church-state separation issue reveals that it was fought for with blood. And it was a very important issue to our Founding Fathers. It was, in large part due to the corruption of the churches. The Adams Jefferson Letters; pg,494 Adams to Jefferson; "...Would it not be better to aply these pious subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the Corruptions of Christianity; than to propogate thsoe Corruptions in Europe Asia, Aferica and America!...Conclude not from all of this, that I have renounced the Christian Religion, or that I agree with Dupuis in all his Sentiments. Far from it. I see in every Page, Something to recommend Christianity in its Purity, and something to discredit is Corruptions....The Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the Mount contain my Religion." Jefferson believed much the same way. That the basic fundamental of Christianity as taught by Jesus were fine, but that the ideas that go beyong the basic tenants, "and when he felt that Christians ought to dispense with the theological verbiage and inform themselves on the basic principles of their religion, he compiled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." were less necessary. Same book page xlvii in the Introduction. Edit: So, when the country was being "founded" (during the fights when the Founding Fathers were drafting and voting on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution there were Quaker's, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Unitarian's, etc. doing the arguing and drafting. To say that some part of their Religious beleifs, which are based on "Chritianity", did not make their way into those documents and the tenants on which they and the country are based is just foolish. With that being said, did they draft those documents and intend for us to be a "Christian" nation. No. They had a profoundly strong belief that people ought to be able to worship as they please. |
|
Quoted:
" It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. " I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... In that day and age, 'religion' meant Christianity. Our founding fathers would have pistol-whipped anyone who had shown the nerve to say 'sharia law' in a public meeting. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
" It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. " I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... In that day and age, 'religion' meant Christianity. Our founding fathers would have pistol-whipped anyone who had shown the nerve to say 'sharia law' in a public meeting.
"in that day and age, 'arms' meant muskets. Our founding fathers would have pistol whipped anyone who had the nerve to say that everyone should have evil black semi-automatic rifles. Its fun when you change the definition of freedom to suit your interests isn't it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
" It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. " I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... In that day and age, 'religion' meant Christianity. Our founding fathers would have pistol-whipped anyone who had shown the nerve to say 'sharia law' in a public meeting.
"in that day and age, 'arms' meant muskets. Our founding fathers would have pistol whipped anyone who had the nerve to say that everyone should have evil black semi-automatic rifles. Its fun when you change the definition of freedom to suit your interests isn't it? That's idiotic. There's no nice way to put it. Our FF were very, very much in favor of not having a heavy-handed religion dictating how society ran. That's one of the overriding purposes for which they came here. To try to equate sharia law to semi-automatic firearms is sheer stupidity, and one of the more extreme examples thereof that I've seen here. |
|
you have it correct the problem is a lot of people on arfcom can't understand that if you give preference to one religion over another, then you are establishing a state religion in principle. You're just stepping around the amendment by not explicitly doing so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
" It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. " I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... In that day and age, 'religion' meant Christianity. Oh, enough with your made-up, historical revisionism bullshit already. The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
- Thomas Jefferson's Autobiography, 1821 Our founding fathers would have pistol-whipped anyone who had shown the nerve to say 'sharia law' in a public meeting.
Equating "free practice of religion" with "Sharia influence in code law" is a ridiculous leap. |
|
Quoted: Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Read it. That's what Jefferson had in mind. And that's why Jefferson himself believed that bill was one of the three most significant documents he ever wrote. Too bad a few foolish Justices cherry-picked a single phrase from Jefferson's entire life's work and used it completely out of context to foist their own warped antagonistic view of religion on the nation. an even better document from the same website that argues against state supported religions is Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html And they didn't take his comments out of context. That was Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I think his interpretation should hold some weight. At least as much as yours  |
|
Quoted: Our FF were very, very much in favor of not having a heavy-handed religion dictating how society ran. That's one of the overriding purposes for which they came here. agreed Too bad their descendants seem to have forgotten it. Heavy handed is in the eye of the beholder. To most Muslims, Shiara law doesn't seem to be much of hardship. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union didn't see the problem in outlawing alcohol either. The Christians in my area (my family included) supported the blue laws which infringed on the rights of all non-Christians and some Christians sects that have the sabbath on Saturday. |
|
Quoted:
Oh, enough with your made-up, historical revisionism bullshit already. You're a live one, I'll give you that. All that hate keeps you warm, I guess. I have no illusions that the FF didn't intend to provide for people of other religions living freely in America. But when someone starts to think 'sharia law' would have flown back then, they've lost their minds. Free excercise of religion did not include, in their thinking, the aspects of that religion that required you to force it upon others. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
" It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. " I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... In that day and age, 'religion' meant Christianity. Our founding fathers would have pistol-whipped anyone who had shown the nerve to say 'sharia law' in a public meeting.
"in that day and age, 'arms' meant muskets. Our founding fathers would have pistol whipped anyone who had the nerve to say that everyone should have evil black semi-automatic rifles. Its fun when you change the definition of freedom to suit your interests isn't it? That's idiotic. There's no nice way to put it. Our FF were very, very much in favor of not having a heavy-handed religion dictating how society ran. That's one of the overriding purposes for which they came here. To try to equate sharia law to semi-automatic firearms is sheer stupidity, and one of the more extreme examples thereof that I've seen here. Uhhh...he wasn't equating sharia law to semi-automatic firearms. He was commenting on the ridiculousness of your "in that day and age, 'religion' meant Christianity" claim. Glass houses, throwing stones, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, enough with your made-up, historical revisionism bullshit already. You're a live one, I'll give you that. All that hate keeps you warm, I guess. I have no illusions that the FF didn't intend to provide for people of other religions living freely in America. But when someone starts to think 'sharia law' would have flown back then, they've lost their minds. Free excercise of religion did not include, in their thinking, the aspects of that religion that required you to force it upon others. Your usual silly and transparent rhetorical misdirection games aside...you really need to consider a remedial course in reading comprehension. No one here (except you) has said/implied a single thing about sharia law being accepted at the time. |
|
Quoted:
Your usual silly and transparent rhetorical misdirection games aside...you really need to consider a remedial course in reading comprehension. No one here (except you) has said/implied a single thing about sharia law being accepted at the time. I'll go through this slowly, because you're...well, slow. Quoted:
" It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. " I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... See that? Do you see the part in bold? Driftpunch quoted that from the OP. Let's go back and find the quote in context: The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. See it? It's couched in a discussion of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment was an amendment made to this document we call our 'constitution' by this group of men we now refer to as our 'founding fathers'. Driftpuch's statement capitalized on the phrase from the OP which was in reference to the 1st Amendment, which was written by our founding fathers. Therefore, I was able to connect driftpunch's statement concerning sharia law to our founding fathers. In light of that - maybe *you* need the course in reading comprehension. I'd be happy to try and help, but I must warn you up front: I'm not a miracle-worker. Your case may be beyond my ability to fix. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One thing many don't realize (probably because it isn't taught these days) is how influential the pastors of American churches were in the days leading up to and during the Revolution. A close examination of the church-state separation issue reveals that it was fought for with blood. And it was a very important issue to our Founding Fathers. It was, in large part due to the corruption of the churches. Sure it does. You realise that the corruption of the churches he is referring to was in large part due to government control of the churches. You can look at the (Jefferson's time) recent use of the church in England to control the English monarchy. Rulers have long utilized the power and control of religion to force their will on the people. Now, in recent times, in the United States the super-liberals are attempting to utilize the power of the government to force religions to stop teaching principles that go against the liberal-agenda. Now it is government trying to force their will on churches. The corruption now, is not "the people" and their churches. The corruption now is big-government, big-spenders, and hyper-liberals who would like to see it against the law to speak out against the government (like in China) or speak out against homosexuality (Sweden, Canada). The corruption now is that government (pushed on by hyper-liberals) are trying to force their will on churches... |
|
Quoted:
I'll go through this slowly, because you're...well, slow. Quite a barb coming from someone who managed to screw up a simple train of thought as badly as you do below. At least you're consistent in still hiding from the exposed foolishness of your "religion meant Christianity" claim. Quoted:
" It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. " I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... See that? Do you see the part in bold? Driftpunch quoted that from the OP. Let's go back and find the quote in context: The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. See it? It's couched in a discussion of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment was an amendment made to this document we call our 'constitution' by this group of men we now refer to as our 'founding fathers'. Driftpuch's statement capitalized on the phrase from the OP which was in reference to the 1st Amendment, which was written by our founding fathers. Therefore, I was able to connect driftpunch's statement concerning sharia law to our founding fathers. In light of that - maybe *you* need the course in reading comprehension. I'd be happy to try and help, but I must warn you up front: I'm not a miracle-worker. Your case may be beyond my ability to fix. You're also consistent in that you seem to end every one of your displays of ignorance with an ironic, hypocritical and obnoxious claim of intellectual superiority. That said... That the comment on sharia law was made in the context of a discussion about Amendment I (and by extension, the FFs) does NOT mean that it was a claim about sharia law codified in state law (Did you miss that part of the quote? I hilighted it in bold red above, just in case you did), or even as a local practice at the time of the FFs. What DriftPunch was asserting was that the quote from the OP that he (DriftPunch) emphasized... " It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. "
...somehow impled that he (the OP) would be OK with sharia law being codified into local law in areas of the U.S. where Islam is predominant (or at least "in areas with high muslim populations"). He (nor anyone else) said anything about sharia law in the U.S. at the time of the FFs. Physician, heal thyself. |
|
Quoted:
As anyone who has read my posts throughout the years here knows, I am not a religious person. I don't believe any human religion is based on reality and I don't believe that the Creator of this universe, if there is such a being, either needs or wants our worship nor does this being care how we live our lives. That said, I don't hate religion and I don't hate Christianity. I think Christianity on the whole has had a positive influence on history and civilization. I have to say, the people who distorted the interpretation of the First Amendment to mean that the government can have no involvement whatsoever with religion to the point of forbidding Christmas decorations on public property really do hate religion. I totally agree with you. Some of you guys may find this interesting coming from an Atheist, but I own my own Santa suit & have volunteered to ring the bell for the Salvation Army, & have done a "breakfast with Santa" as a freebee to my local park district, not because It's related to Christianity or religion, but because it seemed like a fun thing to do, & the kids get a kick out of it. Last year I was Santa for the family members of an Army unit that was in Iraq, & (dont tell the ACLU) we took a Fire Department Engine with us....... |
|
The "Bill of Rights" was ratified by represents from all 13 states and the president 23 years before Jefferson wrote the letter with the wall of separation statement in it. Somehow when the SCOTUS made the decision they made, they totally disregard what everyone else thought and instead took a part of a letter which seems to contradict Jefferson's own history.
I think that one of the biggest problems we have in this country is, people who don't like part of our Constitution or Bill of Rights get the judicial branch to twist the meaning, rather than go to the amendment process, which they would most likely fail on. We need a judiciary that are not political hacks, or the country is surely doomed. 
Correction 13 years not 23, I don't think this has any relevance to the discussion, but it was bad math.
|
|
I just don't see a stronger framework for morality than the that of the Christain faith. (New Testament)
Even atheist I have talked with agree that "Christain attitudes and principles" should be embraced by everyone in our society. That does not mean there should be a specific church of the nation, but I don't see a legitimate argument against keeping such values in our society. If anything the majority of our legal system seems to be based on Christain values. (equal treatment of all men and women, Golden Rule, 10 Commandments (less those specifically referencing God), etc) I don't understand the assault on relics of our country's history because of their religious affiliation. IMO |
|
Quoted:
The "Bill of Rights" was ratified by represents from all 13 states and the president... There was no "President" when the BoR was ratified, along with the rest of the Constitution, in 1788. The Constitution is what created the office. ...23 years before Jefferson wrote the letter with the wall of separation statement in it. Somehow when the SCOTUS made the decision they made, they totally disregard what everyone else thought and instead took a part of a letter which seems to contradict Jefferson's own history.
I'll agree that courts...SCOTUS included...have gone overboard with their interpretation of the concept of "separation between church and state". But I'm not sure how you think the letter in question contradicts the author's history. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Read it. That's what Jefferson had in mind. And that's why Jefferson himself believed that bill was one of the three most significant documents he ever wrote. Too bad a few foolish Justices cherry-picked a single phrase from Jefferson's entire life's work and used it completely out of context to foist their own warped antagonistic view of religion on the nation. an even better document from the same website that argues against state supported religions is Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html And they didn't take his comments out of context.That was Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I think his interpretation should hold some weight. At least as much as yours Only a gun-nut would create that typo.  It was taken out of context by several ways. 1. It was single phrase from a private correspondence. Is that what we shall be using from now on to decide the direction of landmark Constitutional issues!??????? 2. It was vague at best - the IMPLICATIONS of this vague "wall of separation" can go in many different directions depending on who's reading it. That's why it should not have even been considered as a foundational text for deciding Jefferson's views of the 1st amendment. 3. The way in which that phrase was interpreted by the Court contradicts Jefferson's own efforts to enact his "religious freedom" bill which was the foundation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. 4. There are many other CLEAR and unambiguous examples of what the FFs did and thought while writing and operating under the establishment clause that the Court simply ignored, in order to keep this single vague phrase at the forefront of their justification. And again - When has the Court EVER used private correspondence to decide landmark Constitutional interpretations before or since!???? This was the ONLY such vague reference that was used when there are MANY other OFFICIAL and PERFECTLY CLEAR examples of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote and adopted the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. It's pretty clear the Court cherrypicked this one single vague phrase from a private correspondence (and ignored MANY contradictory official pronouncements, acts and statements from the FFs) simply because the Court wanted to impose their antagonistic view of religion on the country. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: " It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. " I'm glad you think that the practice of Islam should not be interfered with at the governmental level. This way, in areas with high muslim populations, you should have no problem with a Sharia influence in code law... In that day and age, 'religion' meant Christianity. Our founding fathers would have pistol-whipped anyone who had shown the nerve to say 'sharia law' in a public meeting. I try to go by their words instead of your interpretation. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom |
|
Quoted:
I just don't see a stronger framework for morality than the that of the Christain faith. (New Testament) Even atheist I have talked with agree that "Christain attitudes and principles" should be embraced by everyone in our society. That does not mean there should be a specific church of the nation, but I don't see a legitimate argument against keeping such values in our society. If anything the majority of our legal system seems to be based on Christain values. (equal treatment of all men and women, Golden Rule, 10 Commandments (less those specifically referencing God), etc) I don't understand the assault on relics of our country's history because of their religious affiliation. IMO It's not exclusive to Christians. Most religions have the same principles because they are inherent to the human race. Everyone knows what is right or wrong instinctively. It does not take Christianity to define morality. |