Separation of Church and State?

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:57 am

TruthSeekerToo wrote: 1. The Supreme Court is not above making mistakes. In the "Dred Scott" case of 1857, the Court upheld salvery as constitutional.

2. I think exclusive statements like "extremists of the religious right" and "They seem too stupid" just adds fuel to the fire.1. Well, TST, I think you are missing the point here. That was not a 'mistake' in the judicial sense. Slavery was indeed legal at that time.

2. Can you name anyone who is NOT an extremist - or a fool - who opposes Church/State separation in the USA? If so, what exactly do they propose to replace it with? And where do they expect to find sufficient support to overturn the Bill of Rights?

Also, if you wish to quote me, please do so in the proper context. Here is what I said:They seem too stupid to realize that the purpose of the wall of separation is not to inhibit religion but to guarantee religious freedom for everyone. That is the entire point - separation of Church and State protect's EVERYONE'S freedom of religion, including yours. The ones who want it repealed are a tiny minority, who assume that if that were to happen, THEIR peculiar brand of religion would prevail. That is a very foolish assumption.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:02 am

moverguy wrote: Don't be mad because I know and believe in God and that "IN GOD WE TRUST" is everywhere, blow me big guy

It'd too bad you suck, and believe the life, in all forms is just a series of clinical coincidences.What is your denomination, the First Church of the Filthy Mouth?

How about answering the questions? Where does the Constitution mention God? Where does the D of I mention any god other than the 'God of Nature'? Where are these buildings? Why don't you at least have some idea of what you are doing before defecating in a public place?

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:08 pm

Moverguy... Your dirty disrespectful mouth, and utter disrespect for other human beings would tax the faith of a saint. It is incredible that you would even be drawn to participate in any topic that in any way touches on a sentence including

anything connected to spiritual awareness. You are fortunate to have been permitted entry into a place this clean. Is there anyone left, anywhere, who enjoys hearing from you?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:18 pm

preserving moverguy's quote and personal attack"--But oh meager one, and lord of mental midgetry - -

LIFE IS DIVINE; you obviously don't have kids, and never saw their eyes as they joined the human, physical race or listened to their breathing and FELT the power and grace over them. Heard them pray, listen to them sleep and hear them dream.

You poor, impotent and self encased prophylactic. quote...."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:18 pm

Guy,

Treat the rest of the Gardeners with half the respect you've been shown, and you'll be miles ahead of that last post.

You can get your point across without the crap. I've seen it. We've had enough bad blood boiled this week.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:23 pm

Another personal attack here as well.

moverguy wrote: Don't be mad because I know and believe in God and that "IN GOD WE TRUST" is everywhere, blow me big guy

It'd too bad you suck, and believe the life, in all forms is just a series of clinical coincidences.

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:08 am

Bronwen wrote: The ones who want it repealed are a tiny minority...
Can you supply evidence via internet link to support your opinion? Speaking of minorities, it is common knowledge that communists in America are in the minority. The following came from the 1963 Congressional Record as originally published in the book The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen:

Item #17. Get control of the schools.

Item #28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Many of the fourty-five (45) communist goals listed have been realized, including the ones surrounding "separation of church and state." There's one about doing away with "all loyalty oaths." Atheists in America are currently trying to get "under God" taken out of our Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" removed from our money. Do you support removing those religious phrases from our government-endorsed items?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:33 am

Bronwyn, first have you reported moverguy? He's giving Warner Brothers a bad name with that av.

Second, and far more important, I'm interested in your opinion about my assertion that the pendulum has swung too far, and the gov't is becoming the de facto church, because after all, it's all about me. :rolleyes:

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:59 am

Accountable wrote: 1. Bronwyn, first have you reported moverguy? He's giving Warner Brothers a bad name with that av.

2. Second, and far more important, I'm interested in your opinion about my assertion that the pendulum has swung too far, and the gov't is becoming the de facto church, because after all, it's all about me. :rolleyes:1. Not yet. He's also giving Allied Van Lines a bad name. What I really should do is blatht him with my dithintegrater, and when it dithintegratth, it dithintegratth!

Well, whadaya know, it dithintegrated.

2. There shouldn't be any 'pendulum', and if one exists, I don't see its swing as being very wide. As I said near the top of the thread, the prayers in Congress are non-sectarian and support rather than threaten freedom of religion. That would be virtually impossible to accomplish in schools, for the reasons I stated. Furthermore, as long as we have groups like the Moron Majority and the so-called Christian Coalition we will also have watchdog groups like the ACLU, PAW, and Americans United for Separation. There is no force at work in America today that seriously threatens either free expression of religion or its separation from government. If that ever happens, the circumstances will be much farther-reaching than a debate over prayer in schools.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:46 am

TruthSeekerToo wrote: 1. Can you supply evidence via internet link to support your opinion?

2. Speaking of minorities, it is common knowledge that communists in America are in the minority.

3. The following came from the 1963 Congressional Record as originally published in the book The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen:

Item #17. Get control of the schools.....

4. Many of the fourty-five (45) communist goals listed have been realized, including the ones surrounding "separation of church and state." There's one about doing away with "all loyalty oaths."

5. Atheists in America are currently trying to get "under God" taken out of our Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" removed from our money. Do you support removing those religious phrases from our government-endorsed items?Wow, TST, you are all over the place here. The problem with expanding discussions like this is that one issue gets lost in another. Let's try to keep it centered on Separation of Church and State as suggested by the thread title. If you want to discuss Communism, I'll gladly do that in a separate thread.

That having been said, I will attempt to reply briefly to each of your points:

1. No, I can't, TST. We are talking here about the Constitution of the United States, which has guided this nation for well over 200 years. If you are seriously contending that the majority, or even a SIGNIFICANT minority of Americans want to scrap it (replaced by what???) it seems to me that the burden of proof rests on you. There have always been extremists, because even extreme ideas, within limits, are protected by the Bill of Rights. But I know of no movement OTHER THAN YOU OWN to revoke any of these basic freedoms, of which the freedom to worship or not worship as we wish is arguably the most important and profound. In you want to discuss LIMITING certain freedoms in time of emergency, as the so-called 'Patriot Act' is doing, that is obviously beyond the scope of this thread.

2. Well, TST, communists in this country are virtually non-existant, as they are in the rest of the world with a few exceptions. The alleged communist goal of world domination, if it ever existed, is a dim relic of history. If you feel seriously threatened by communism, I suggest a visit to a good psychiatrist, one who specializes in paranoia.

3. First of all, that 'list' was complete nonsense, complied by a man who knew nothing of communism; in fact, many of the items on his list are in direct opposition to the basic tenets of Marxist and Stalinist communism. No one has ever shown that any such list existed, except in the imagination of the author.

Secondly, 'Item #17, Get control of the schools.' is exactly what YOUR bunch is attempting to do. A perfect example of this are the various ongoing attempts to have nonsense like 'creationism' taught as scientific fact in public schools.

Thirdly, most of the established communistic societies in this country's history, such as the Amana colonies in Iowa, the Bishop Hill community in Illinois, and many Mennonite communes, some of which still exist, were deeply rooted in Christianity, just as the Acts of the Apostles describe the communistic organization of the early Church.

4. Since these 'goals' were fictitious, there is not much point in asking which of them you feel have been realized. Before we go on, though, let me make just one more point on this subject. I don't know how old you are, probably much younger than I. I remember the anti-communist 'witch hunts' of the 1950's, when thousands of lives were ruined, and people even driven to suicide, simply because of their politics. It was one of the darkest periods in American history. Most working people who joined communist-leaning organizations at that time did so in order to promote the goals of the trade union movement, that working people should be able to bargain collectively in order to improve their wages and working conditions, and in this regard they were to some extent successful. While there were communist organizations like the CPUSA which were clearly subversive, their overall influence was virtually nil (they might have had some localized influence here and there), and loyal working-class Americans who innocently wandered into such groups usually left quickly.

5. I know they are, and that is their right, just as it is your right to support those things. Me, I couldn't care less, my interest is in keeping religious expession free of government interference, which means keeping the wall of separation strong.

TST, after this entire series of exchanges, you still don't seem to 'get it'. The First Amendment is there to protect EVERYONE's religious freedom, including yours. I keep asking what you, and the others who take your view, would replace it with, and so far none of you have given a direct response. I'll keep asking.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:49 am

moverguy wrote: I am always impressed and amused by the attempts of the allegedly educated, reasonable and vain to define and lessen God, Buddha, Allah and anything else that represents the divine.

SCIENCE cannot answer so many questions:

But oh meager one, and lord of mental midgetry - -

The earth, decelerates a little bit each year, this is a mathematical fact. The moon, once had a defined, plotted rotation upon its own axis - kind of like the earth huh?

So take the rate of DECELERATION and compare that formula in a reverse multiplier of the known rate and that = 100 million years ago a single day would have had a REAL SHORT DAY like you mental ability to grasp beyond the tactile / sensory universe. Gravity would be several more times than it is and the weather - if you could call it that would not be possible.

LIFE IS DIVINE; you obviously don't have kids, and never saw their eyes as they joined the human, physical race or listened to their breathing and FELT the power and grace over them. Heard them pray, listen to them sleep and hear them dream.

You poor, impotent and self encased prophylactic.

God, in whatever form you choose to ignore it, and in whatever form it (she or he) is denied by you, the least of the forum acumen, will still exist since the big bang, matter from nothing, life and the energy of the human soul are not enough to even break past your granite hardened idiocy.

This nation, the United State of America, is based on the faith, law and idea that we are creatures of divine and holy inspiration and intervention.

And assmonkeys like you and the pseudo scientific will be left out, forgotten and just misplaced from History.

In god We trust

One Nation Under God

Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...The post quoted above is so moronic that I'm not going to even address the poster, but just make a few brief observations:

Firstly, anyone who has read my posts on these forum knows that I am a lifelong Christian, who, like most Christians, realizes that the separation of religion from government protects rather than inhibits my religious expression. His attempt to characterize me otherwise only displays his ignorance.

Secondly, this thread has nothing to do with science. Science involves an ongoing quest for knowledge and truth and things that are not known, or in question today may be clearer tomorrow. Science is always advancing. Superstition, ignorance and nonsense remain the same always.

When those on the outer fringes of religion attempt to have superstition, ignorance and nonsense taught in public schools as scientific fact, that must be opposed. The quoted section above gives an particularly silly example. Did this come from a scientific textbook or a religious one? Obviously the latter, and this is typical of the kind of garbage religious extremists keep trying to get into America's public schools.

Thirdly, I asked the poster to support his claim that the Constitution of the US makes any reference to God, admitting that there might be one that I have missed. He has not done so. Anyone else who can find one is welcome to cite it here.

I asked him to name the government buildings on which references to God appear, as he claims, and give the locations. He has not done so. Anyone else know?

I pointed out that the Declaration of Independence makes reference only to 'The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God', hardly a Christian or sectarian concept. He then responds my quoting the D of I with the heading 'In God we Trust - One Nation Under God', which it does NOT contain. He then quotes the opening paragraphs, which are just as I said. I then ended the quote to save space, but there is no further mention of a Deity, only of the tyranny of British rule, which was the entire purpose of the declaration. It had NOTHING to do with religion.

Fourthly, anyone who has studied American history, which would seem to exclude the dude quoted above, knows that the USA was founded by Episcopalians, Unitarians (Deists) and Freemasons. Anyone who questions the influence of Masonry on the birth of our nation need only look on the back of a dollar bill. There were also some Catholics, Jews, and other 'mainline' Protestants. The influence of Fundamentalists was VERY small, if any; in fact, it is difficult to name names, Roger Williams of Rhode Island being the one most often cited. In spite of that, charlatans like Jerry Foulwell and Pat Robertson keep insisting that those of their peculiar ilk founded our nation and then somehow had it 'taken away from them', an outrageous lie and a direct violation of the commandment prohibiting false witness. That various fundamentalist sects SOUGHT REFUGE from political and religious persecution here is not in dispute, but they had little or no part in winning our independence.

Lastly, anyone who THINKS they want a theocracy in this country, as some contributors to this thread seem to espouse, need only look to Iran, a country with which our own will, I fear, very shortly be at full-fledged war. While it is regrettable that such a war should be necessary, it will hopefully wake some people up as to the differences between freedom and religious tyranny.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:30 am

Bronwen wrote:

2. There shouldn't be any 'pendulum', and if one exists, I don't see its swing as being very wide. As I said near the top of the thread, the prayers in Congress are non-sectarian and support rather than threaten freedom of religion. That would be virtually impossible to accomplish in schools, for the reasons I stated. Furthermore, as long as we have groups like the Moron Majority and the so-called Christian Coalition we will also have watchdog groups like the ACLU, PAW, and Americans United for Separation. There is no force at work in America today that seriously threatens either free expression of religion or its separation from government. If that ever happens, the circumstances will be much farther-reaching than a debate over prayer in schools.
So you think it's okay that the gov't take over the churches' traditional role of moral compass (ie establishing itself as the Church), or don't think that's happening at all, or something else?

bigdaddy · Post by **bigdaddy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:31 am

Secondly, 'Item #17, Get control of the schools.' is exactly what YOUR bunch is attempting to do. A perfect example of this are the various ongoing attempts to have nonsense like 'creationism' taught as scientific fact in public schools.

Why do you consider creationism nonsense?

And who do you considier "YOUR"?

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:22 pm

Uh... Yoo hoo!

I'm still curious about your burden for this issue- your gut feelings apart from all the political, theological, ethical rhetoric. Would you all mind answering a few questions? (brief and in this format please)

What would you like to see happen in regards to Church and State, in your country?

How would you benefit, or how would it affect you personally?

What do you think will really happen in regards to Church and State in your country, and why do you think so?

How do you expect it will affect your own life?

I'll be back from a camping trip to Death Valley on Tuesday. CHeers!:)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:03 pm

telaquapacky wrote: Uh... Yoo hoo!

I'm still curious about your burden for this issue- your gut feelings apart from all the political, theological, ethical rhetoric. Would you all mind answering a few questions? (brief and in this format please)

What would you like to see happen in regards to Church and State, in your country?

How would you benefit, or how would it affect you personally?

What do you think will really happen in regards to Church and State in your country, and why do you think so?

How do you expect it will affect your own life?

I'll be back from a camping trip to Death Valley on Tuesday. CHeers!:)Whose feelings? The previous post followed Jives and this one followed Bigdaddy. I recently posted my druthers, but I could do it again I guess.

Slade1 · Post by **Slade1** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:29 pm

bigdaddy wrote: Secondly, 'Item #17, Get control of the schools.' is exactly what YOUR bunch is attempting to do. A perfect example of this are the various ongoing attempts to have nonsense like 'creationism' taught as scientific fact in public schools.

Why do you consider creationism nonsense?

And who do you considier "YOUR"?

My word, where would I start...ummm...in the red corner we have the theory of evolution, backed up by reams and reams of evidence, and in the blue corner we have creationism backed up by er, well a book. Writer/s unknown, time of writing unknown, accuracy questionable to say the very least. I know which one I would bet on.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:53 pm

Slade1 wrote: My word, where would I start...ummm...in the red corner we have the theory of evolution, backed up by reams and reams of evidence, and in the blue corner we have creationism backed up by er, well a book. Writer/s unknown, time of writing unknown, accuracy questionable to say the very least. I know which one I would bet on.

I laugh when people point out tht evolution is just a "theory." When does a theory become a theorem (fact)? Easy, when it can be proven that it works for every single condition or example possible. That's why the Pythagorean Theorem is not a theory. It works for every single right triangle possible.

For Evolution to become a theorem, we would have to examine all life on every planet in every galaxy in the Universe to make sure that there is not a counter example. That is flat out impossible, but one thing is already proven....

Evolution explains every single example on this planet.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:43 pm

I find it amusing that both sides get bent out of shape over the subject.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:46 pm

Have you ever wondered if evolution has stopped for mankind? We do change our environment now, so we don't have to worry about adapting to things like ice ages.

On the other hand, our intelligence has evolved to the point where we soon may be able to change our very DNA. We will be stronger, faster, healthier, and longer-living. Is that a part of evolution? Or is it anti-evolutionary?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:52 pm

Maybe we're just a Sims game for some advanced race pimply adolescent. :wah:

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:13 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: I believe the "wall of separation" was a mere edict via legislation from the bench (Supreme Court) in 1947. How is it that we can't have prayer led in school, but our government officials can have prayer led in their government buildings? Case in point: The Virginia General Assembly opened its current session on Friday, January 27, 2006 with a prayer led by an imam from Roanoke, Virginia. Our federal House of Representatives and Senate open every day's business with a prayer led by a House or Senate Chaplain. Sometimes, guest clergy are allowed to lead those bodies in prayer. It is looked upon as a high honor for clergy in the field to be called upon in such a manner. Is this askew, or am I living in the "Twilight Zone?" Why is this "wall of separation" enforced selectively?

Dear Mr. ChiptBeef

You are confused because there is no fundamental principle underlying Supreme Court opinions regarding the religion clauses. However, this has not aways been the case. During the Early Years of the Republic James Madison's interpretation of the religion clauses prevailed in every dispute regarding the meaning thereof.

Executive Religious Recommendations

Madison's interpretation prevailed on the question of whether the President had the authority to issue thanksgiving and other religous recommendations to the people. Wasington issued one in 1789 but never repeated his mistake. John Adams issued two in four years, without the consent of Congress, and he was voted out of office. Thomas Jefferson was the first of thirteen Presidents in a row that did not believe they had the authority to issue religious recomendations.

Congressional Prayer

Contrary to the perjury and propaganda of Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Antonia Scalia, there is no evidence in the offical records of the First U. S. Congress of Chaplains opening each daily legislative session with prayers.

Congressional Chaplains

The Chaplains to the First U. S. Congress were paid less than messengers and the only thing they ever did for the First Congress was perform a divine service in Saint Paul's Chapel for the members of Congress, the President and the Vice President on the day that George Washington was sworn in as the First President.

Ten Commandments Displays in Federal Court Houses

This proposal was never even officially introduced.

Congressional Authority Over Election and Removal of a Church Minister

The House of Representatives voted 71 to 29 on February 23, 1811 in favor of President James Madison's interpretation of the establishment clause and rejected the Federalist interpretation that the establsihment clause merely prohibited the establishment of a national religion like the Church of England. The dispute involved a Bill that Madison vetoed.

Sunday Mail Delivery

The House of Representatives in 1810, 1815, 1830 and 1831 rejected the argument that the establshment clause prohibited the Post Office law that authorized the mail to be transported and opened on Sunday.

In 1878 when the first dispute regarding the meaning of the religion clauses reached the U. S Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. U. S. the Court adopted James Madisons definition of the word "religion" which was, "the duty that we owe to the Creator." The Court also adopted Madison fundamental principle that religion is exempt from the coqnizance (jurdisdiction authority and power) of the government.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln disrespected God's authority over his religion and in 1863 issued a religious recommendation to the people. During the same war, some stooge in the mint bureau became possessed of the Devil and decided to stamp "In God We Trust" on some of our currency. These seemingly trivial violations of the establishment clause have been exploited by Counterfeit Christians to confuse the people.

The High Court needs to return to the fundamental principle that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the duty that we owe to the Creator, or prohibbiting the free exercise thereof.

**************************

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:27 pm

hi Bronwen, please clear your PM box.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:52 am

pFredFlash wrote: You are confused because there is no fundamental principle underlying Supreme Court opinions regarding the religion clauses.
There are no "religion clauses" in our Constitution. The First Amendment contains "The Establishment Clause" and "The Free Exercise Clause." The Supreme Court has issued principled opinions regarding those clauses. My concerns about a "wall of separation" has been echoed by at least one Chief Justice.

The following came from The Words We Live By, authored by Linda R. Monk.

Page 129 & 130: "The Supreme Court quoted Jefferson's metaphor in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). In that case, the Court for the first time incorporated the Establishment Clause to apply to the states - opening the door to a plethora of church-state cases. The Court outlined the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause as follows:

Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force...aperson to go or to remain away from church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Although the Supreme Court in Everson cited Jefferson's phrase of "a wall of separation between church and state," those words do not actually appear in the First Amendment. In addition to Everson, the Supreme Court has used a variety of legal tests regarding the Establishment Clause issue. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has long objected to the "wall of separation" doctrine..."

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:46 am

Some of us are critical of the way Jefferson's metaphor of a seperating wall has been used to attempt to squash all public aknowledgment of religious faith. As for me, that does not mean I support the forceful teaching of religion in schools or the coercive implementation of religious doctrine in the political process. I simply believe that there is a movement afoot to remove all vestiges of religious expression from the public arena. This is just a agregious as the ID'ers who are trying to force creationism to be taught in the schools.

True story: My sixth grader, out of the blue one day, started telling me about Islam. "Did you know muslms believe......?" "Did you know Mohammed......?" "Did you know muslims believe Jesus was.....?" I asked her where she was learning this; she said school. I asked if they told her anything about Christianity. She said no. "But did you know that Buddhists....?" Are you learning anything about Judaism? "No, but the Koran.....?" To be honest, I wasn't much bothered by it. It's knowledge. It's not going to hurt her to learn about religions of the world. But I am wondering when the ACLU is going to rush down here to put a stop to it. I'm not holding my breath, they're probably busy making sure some kid doesn't utter the word "Christmas" or bring little sugar cookies shaped like angels to school and therefore violating the Constitution. :-2

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:20 am

Adam Zapple wrote: Some of us are critical of the way Jefferson's metaphor of a seperating wall has been used to attempt to squash all public aknowledgment of religious faith. As for me, that does not mean I support the forceful teaching of religion in schools or the coercive implementation of religious doctrine in the political process. I simply believe that there is a movement afoot to remove all vestiges of religious expression from the public arena. This is just a agregious as the ID'ers who are trying to force creationism to be taught in the schools.
Well said. Having those concerns shouldn't automatically place you into a phantom minority with labels by those bigoted against your ideas that are shared by many others. :yh_flag

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:34 am

FredFlash,

Pretty impressive first post. What is a "religious recommendation" as you use the phrase?

Also, where'd all this come from? if you're a historian that is beyond cool, as we have a couple others and it makes for great conversation. If it's someone else's research, I'd like to check it out & read further. Do you have a reference?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:35 am

Adam Zapple wrote: Some of us are critical of the way Jefferson's metaphor of a seperating wall has been used to attempt to squash all public aknowledgment of religious faith. As for me, that does not mean I support the forceful teaching of religion in schools or the coercive implementation of religious doctrine in the political process. I simply believe that there is a movement afoot to remove all vestiges of religious expression from the public arena. This is just a agregious as the ID'ers who are trying to force creationism to be taught in the schools.

True story: My sixth grader, out of the blue one day, started telling me about Islam. "Did you know muslms believe......?" "Did you know Mohammed......?" "Did you know muslims believe Jesus was.....?" I asked her where she was learning this; she said school. I asked if they told her anything about Christianity. She said no. "But did you know that Buddhists....?" Are you learning anything about Judaism? "No, but the Koran.....?" To be honest, I wasn't much bothered by it. It's knowledge. It's not going to hurt her to learn about religions of the world. But I am wondering when the ACLU is going to rush down here to put a stop to it. I'm not holding my breath, they're probably busy making sure some kid doesn't utter the word "Christmas" or bring little sugar cookies shaped like angels to school and therefore violating the Constitution. :-2
Adam, always eager to read your posts. You're not here nearly enough. Any chance of getting yourself fired or something?

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:45 am

To ChiptBeef:

The religion clauses are the establishment clause and the free exercise clause; what is a principled opinion; what are your concerns about a "wall of separation"; the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson's wall metaphor sixty nine years before Everson v. Board of Education, in the 1878 case of Reynolds v. U. S.; the words "establsih and maintain an Air Force" do not actually appear in Constitution either, why do you suppose the Court does not just apply one test; and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was just another boring Federalist when it came to interpreting the religion clauses.

************************

I have examined Justice RehnquistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s claim, in Wallace v. Jaffree, that:

Thirty-eight years ago this Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947), summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine thus:

"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879)]."

My opinion is that:

Justice Rehnquist was as blatantly biased, as he was bigheaded and boring. All three qualities are on display in his Wallace dissent. If there was ever a man who considered only the historical evidence that supported his view of the First Amendment, it was Rehnquist.

The very first sentence in his Wallace v. Jaffree dissent reveals that Rehnquist is either an incompetent or a liar. He claims that the Everson Court summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine by saying that it was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." However, an examination of the Everson opinion reveals that the Everson Court summarized its exegesis by saying that.

The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.

Either Rehnquist was totally incompetent or he intentionally misrepresented the Everson opinion. He claims his interpretation is Ã¢â‚¬Å“indisputableÃ¢â‚¬Â then resorts to misrepresenting legal opinions right off the bat? What a Bozo!

May God enlighten,

F. Slice

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:42 am

Accountable wrote: 1. So you think it's okay that the gov't take over the churches' traditional role of moral compass (ie establishing itself as the Church), or don't think that's happening at all, or something else?

2. I find it amusing that both sides get bent out of shape over the subject.1. You are saying several things at once here. Firstly, moral direction finding is not a monolithic process. I know many agnostics and non-churchgoers who have highly developed moral/ethical compasses. Nor, to the extent that the churches DO provide moral guidance do I see that role being taken away from them, especially by the government. Nor, especially, do I see any evidence of the gov't 'establishing itself as the Church', nor am I sure whether you are referring specifically to the current administration or to what you perceive as the direction of American politics in general.

Maybe you could provide some specific examples.

2. Speaking only for myself, I'm not bent at all. I'm enjoying the exchange immensely. But I am still trying to find out exactly what those who oppose the separation have in mind. What is their scenario of life in the US with Church and State combined? They don't seem willing to share that.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:06 am

Accountable wrote: FredFlash, Pretty impressive first post. What is a "religious recommendation" as you use the phrase? Also, where'd all this come from? if you're a historian that is beyond cool, as we have a couple others and it makes for great conversation. If it's someone else's research, I'd like to check it out & read further. Do you have a reference?

Dear Accountable:

Thank you for your warm welcome and kind words; a government religious recommendation is a non coersive and non mandatory recommendation from the government regarding the duty that we owe to the Creator which imposes no punishment for those who do not comply. Examples are: Presidential Prayer, Fasting and Thanksgiving Proclamations; the Federal Pledge of Allegiance law that recommends to school children a daily recital of an affirmation of belief in God; and the displaying of the Ten Commandments by the government to recommend that they are a duty we owe to the Creator.

I am a lawyer not a professional historian. I am not yet permitted to post links to my sources. I will do as soon as possible.

FF

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:44 am

FredFlash wrote: Thank you for your warm welcome and kind words; a government religious recommendation is a non coersive and non mandatory recommendation from the government regarding the duty that we owe to the Creator which imposes no punishment for those who do not comply. Examples are: Presidential Prayer, Fasting and Thanksgiving Proclamations; the Federal Pledge of Allegiance law that recommends to school children a daily recital of an affirmation of belief in God; and the displaying of the Ten Commandments by the government to recommend that they are a duty we owe to the Creator.FF, I join Accountable in welcoming you but this is a very confusing post, to me at least. In your original post you gave examples of most of these things being 'floated' early in our nation's history and rejected, here you seem to acknowledge them as still legitimate.

The pledge schoolchildren make is to the flag and to the nation which it represents. The phrase 'under God' was a politically-motivated cold-war (1950's)interpolation, and makes no affirmation of a religious belief per se, or, even if it does, it hardly goes back to Madison. That phrase was not in the pledge when I was in grade school.

Nor have I ever heard of any government proclamation regarding fasting. Could you give an example?

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:13 am

I thank you for your welcome.

My view is that the pledge of allegence includes an affirmation of belief in God; the federal legislation that recommends it be recited daily is an establishment of the duty that we owe to the Creator; and is therefore a violation of the establsihment clause.

Below is a recommendation for fasting issued by President John Adams.

THANKSGIVING DAY 1798 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Ã¢â‚¬â€œ A PROCLAMATION

As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety without which social happiness can not exist nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed; and as this duty, at all times incumbent, is so especially in seasons of difficulty or of danger, when existing or threatening calamities, the just judgments of God against prevalent iniquity, are a loud call to repentance and reformation; and as the United States of America are at present placed in a hazardous and afflictive situation by the unfriendly disposition, conduct, and demands of a foreign power, evinced by repeated refusals to receive our messengers of reconciliation and peace, by depredations on our commerce, and the infliction of injuries on very many of our fellow-citizens while engaged in their lawful business on the seas Ã¢â‚¬â€œ under these considerations it has appeared to me that the duty of imploring the mercy and benediction of Heaven on our country demands at this time a special attention from its inhabitants.I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recommend, that Wednesday, the 9th day of May next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens of these States, abstaining on that day from their customary worldly occupations, offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies agreeably to those forms or methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming; that all religious congregations do, with the deepest humility, acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction; that it be made the subject of particular and earnest supplication that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it; that our civil and religious privileges may be preserved inviolate and perpetuated to the latest generations; that our public councils and magistrates may be especially enlightened and directed at this critical period; that the American people may be united in those bonds of amity and mutual confidence and inspired with that vigor and fortitude by which they have in times past been so highly distinguished and by which they have obtained such invaluable advantages; that the health of the inhabitants of our land may be preserved, and their agriculture, commerce, fisheries, arts, and manufactures be blessed and prospered; that the principles of genuine piety and sound morality may influence the minds and govern the lives of every description of our citizens and that the blessings of peace, freedom, and pure religion may be speedily extended to all the nations of the earth.And finally, I recommend that on the said day the duties of humiliation and prayer be accompanied by fervent thanksgiving to the Bestower of Every Good Gift, not only for His having hitherto protected and preserved the people of these United States in the independent enjoyment of their religious and civil freedom, but also for having prospered them in a wonderful progress of population, and for conferring on them many and great favors conducive to the happiness and prosperity of a nation.

Given under my hand the seal of the United States of America, at Philadelphia, this 23d day of March, A.D. 1798, and of the Independence of the said States the twenty-second.By the President :

JOHN ADAMS.

**************************

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:32 am

Sunday Mail Delivery Dispute Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Source of Information

Presented below is an excerpt from Col. JohnsonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s (Representing Kentucky in the House Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Chairman of House Post Office Committee) famous report on various petitions praying for repeal of the post-office law authorizing the mail to be transported and opened on Sunday.

March 4-5, 1830

Mr. Johnson of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Post-offices and Post-Roads, to whom had been referred memorials from inhabitants of various parts of the United States, praying for a repeal of so much of the post-office law as authorizes the mail to be transported and opened on Sunday, and to whom had also been referred memorials from other inhabitants of various parts of the United States, remonstrating against such an appeal, made the following report:

That the memorialists regard the first day of the week as a day set apart by the Creator for religious exercises, and consider the transportation of the mail and the opening of the post offices on that day the violation of a religious duty (Note: James Madison defined the word "religion" in the establishment clause to mean "the duty that is owed to the Creator"), and call for a suppression of the practice. Others, by counter memorials, are known to entertain a different sentiment, believing that no one day of the week is holier than another. Others, holding the universality and immutability of the Jewish decalogue, believe in the sanctity of the seventh day of the week as a day of religious devotion; and, by their memorial now before the committee, they also request that it may be set apart for religious purposes. Each has hitherto been left to the exercise of his own opinion; and it has been regarded as the proper business of government to protect all, and determine for none. But the attempt is now made to bring about a greater uniformity, at least in practice; and, as argument has failed, the government has been called upon to interpose its authority to settle the controversy.

Congress acts under a constitution of delegated and limited powers. The Committee looks in vain to that instrument for a delegation of power authorizing this body to inquire and determine what part of time, or whether any, has been set apart by the Almighty for religious exercises. On the contrary, among the few prohibitions which it contains is one that prohibits a religious test; and another which declares that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Committee might here rest the argument, upon the ground that the question referred to them does not come within the cognizance of Congress (Note: This is James Madison's fundamental principle of religious liberty); but the perseverance and zeal with which the memorialists pursue their object seems to require further elucidation of the subject. And, as the opposers of Sunday mails disclaim all intention to unite church and state (Note: The desire is not to achieve separation of church and state but to preserve it) , the committee do not feel disposed to impugn their motives; and whatever may be advanced in opposition to the measure will arise from the fears entertained of its fatal tendency to the peace and happiness of the nation. The catastrophe of other nations furnished the framers of the constitution a beacon of awful warning, and they have evinced the greatest possible care in guarding against the same evil.

Source of Information:

"21st Congress, 1st Session, House Report on Sunday Mails, Communicated to the House of representatives, March 4-5, 1830," American State Papers, Class VII, pp 229. American State Papers Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 244-268.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:54 am

Adam Zapple wrote: Some of us are critical of the way Jefferson's metaphor of a seperating wall has been used to attempt to squash all public aknowledgment of religious faith.

As for me, that does not mean I support the forceful teaching of religion in schools or the coercive implementation of religious doctrine in the political process.

I simply believe that there is a movement afoot to remove all vestiges of religious expression from the public arena.

This is just a agregious as the ID'ers who are trying to force creationism to be taught in the schools.

There are all kinds of crazy political movements regarding Church and State.

The Courts have never ruled that all public aknowledgment of religious faith is to be squashed.

Is the fundamental principal of religious liberty safequarded by the Constitution a prohibition against government forceful teaching of religion in schools or the coercive implementation of religious doctrine in the political process.

Where does the government get the authority to legislate or issue non forceful or no coercive religious recommendations?

I thought God claimed exclusive authority over his religion. When did he ever appoint the U. S. Government to speak for him.

FF

*********************************

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:13 am

Adam Zapple wrote: True story: My sixth grader, out of the blue one day, started telling me about Islam. "Did you know muslms believe......?" "Did you know Mohammed......?" "Did you know muslims believe Jesus was.....?" I asked her where she was learning this; she said school. I asked if they told her anything about Christianity. She said no. "But did you know that Buddhists....?" Are you learning anything about Judaism? "No, but the Koran.....?" To be honest, I wasn't much bothered by it. It's knowledge. It's not going to hurt her to learn about religions of the world. But I am wondering when the ACLU is going to rush down here to put a stop to it. I'm not holding my breath, they're probably busy making sure some kid doesn't utter the word "Christmas" or bring little sugar cookies shaped like angels to school and therefore violating the Constitution. :-2

If your child was advised by the government that she owed the Creator the duty to believe what Muslims believe is their duty to God; or that she has the same divine duties as those who profess Judaism, then you have a legitimate complaint. However, based on your factual allegations I see no violation.

I would be interested in examining your evidence that the ACLU has ever maintained that kids can not utter the word "Christmas" or bring little sugar cookies shaped like angels to school

FF

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:39 pm

FredFlash wrote: I thank you for your welcome.

My view is that the pledge of allegence includes an affirmation of belief in God; the federal legislation that recommends it be recited daily is an establishment of the duty that we owe to the Creator; and is therefore a violation of the establsihment clause.

Below is a recommendation for fasting issued by President John Adams...Thanks for the clarification! Now I understand your position perfectly.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:14 pm

FredFlash wrote: The religion clauses are the establishment clause and the free exercise clause; what is a principled opinion; what are your concerns about a "wall of separation"; the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson's wall metaphor sixty nine years before Everson v. Board of Education, in the 1878 case of Reynolds v. U. S.

************************
My opinion is that:

Justice Rehnquist was as blatantly biased, as he was bigheaded and boring. The very first sentence in his Wallace v. Jaffree dissent reveals that Rehnquist is either an incompetent or a liar. Either Rehnquist was totally incompetent or he intentionally misrepresented the Everson opinion. What a Bozo!
The First Amendment contains two clauses: "The Establishment Clause" and "The Free Exercise Clause." I believe in respecting the document by using the correct titles. I don't think slang is fitting when it comes to that document.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state" was not nationalized until Everson in 1947. The Supreme Court used Jefferson's letter in Reynolds v. United States not to "separate church and state," but rather to find that our government was required to enforce civil law in keeping with basic Christian tenets. Under color of that guide, the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy and bigamy as practiced by Mormons was unconstitutional because it violated general Christian principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/fac ... px?id=1667

"If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." That seems to be popular among some lawyers. It seems a bit harsh to submit our most recently deceased Chief Justice to that. I think it would be more fitting to allow a little more time to pass before the "bighead," "boring," "liar," and "Bozo" card are played. But that's just my opinion.

Have you ever argued before the Supreme Court?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:17 pm

Bronwen wrote: 1. You are saying several things at once here. Firstly, moral direction finding is not a monolithic process. I know many agnostics and non-churchgoers who have highly developed moral/ethical compasses. Nor, to the extent that the churches DO provide moral guidance do I see that role being taken away from them, especially by the government. Nor, especially, do I see any evidence of the gov't 'establishing itself as the Church', nor am I sure whether you are referring specifically to the current administration or to what you perceive as the direction of American politics in general.
My stand is that churches provide a moral anchor that influences our general culture. One doesn't have to attend church to be influenced by it. It's just that simple.

The danger I see is that some groups are so zealous in their fight to get religion out of gov't, they are pushing it out of the very culture. Somebody has to pick up the pieces, and politicians are more than happy to have something they can do to point out their worthiness to be re-elected. So gov't slowly becomes our moral anchor - our buoyant, maleable, poll-driven anchor. :yh_frustr

Gay marriage is a perfect example. That's a moral issue in which the gov't should not get involved. In fact, it should extract itself from marriage, full stop. No more licenses, tax incentives, nothing. That's the churches' purview. I should not have a vote in how you and (an)other consenting adult(s) conduct your love lives.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:40 pm

Bronwen wrote: Let's try to keep it centered on Separation of Church and State as suggested by the thread title. If you want to discuss Communism, I'll gladly do that in a separate thread. I keep asking what you, and the others who take your view, would replace it with, and so far none of you have given a direct response.
You are the one that keeps elluding to a "minority" regarding "separation of church and state." I was merely pointing out another minority's agenda related to the debate by timeline. I consider the Congressional Record credible. I cannot speak for anyone else. I would be satisfied to return to the original intent of the Constitution as it was practiced from adoption in 1790 to the Supreme Court's controversial interpretation of 1947. It's not rocket science. It's not an establishment of religion either, in my opinion.

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:06 pm

Dear ChiptBeef:

The Reynolds Court said nothing about our government being obligated to enforce civil law in keeping with basic Christian tenets; the Reynolds Court said nothing about polygamy and bigamy violating general Christian principles; and the Reynolds Court did not even use the word "Christian" in its opinion.

The doctine of "separation of church and state" was adopted by every State in the Union. I suggest you read the State Consitutions in effect in 1947.

Presented below is some information regarding the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1845 that reveals the Texans view of Church State Separation.

Texans Loved the Separation of Church and State in 1845

Read the excerpts presented below to learn what the delegates to the Texas Constitution said about the Separation of Church and State at the 1845 Constitutional Convention.

Mr. Baylor spoke in support of the proposed ban on members of the clergy serving as State Legislators and said that the ban was calculated to keep clear and well defined the distinction between Church and State, so essentially necessary to human liberty and happiness. Page 163, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

Mr. Davis said The only reason why I rise is that during my canvass in Liberty County, I was accused of wishing to unite Church and State, in consequence of my opinions upon this subject. I deny that it is uniting Church and State to permit ministers of the gospel to participate in the legislation of the country. Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

Mr. Davis expressed his view that if an effort is desired to be made by the religious portion of the community to unite Church and State, may it not as well be made by the members of the churches as ministers of the gospel? Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

Mr. Love pointed out that Protestants marked out a different line of policy. They said it was wrong to unite church and State, wrong that the law should settle the rule of faith, and regulate the religion of Jesus Christ. They would not admit that men should be subject to human authority in matters of opinion: they denied the right to control the conscience, it claimed the right to worship as they pleased; although they submitted to the authority of the law, necessary to prevent crime and preserve the good order of society. It was the cause of the success of Protestantism. Page 170, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

Mr. Brown said that religion and politics are things that must forever run in parallel lines which never meet; for whenever they meet, there is contamination, and religion has in it much more of earth than heaven. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

Mr. Brown I am not willing upon any consideration to relinquish the principle that Church and State, by every mode that can enter into the imagination of this body, should be kept separate, that neither may become corrupt, that religion should have its, powerful sway and benefit influence over private life, and that political affairs should rest in the hands of political men: This, sir, is a discrimination which I feel bound to observe. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

Mr. Brown - It seems to me safer and better for the institution of religion and better for the institution of government, that the two bodies, both grasping at power, both capable of forming contributions, formidable to liberty on the one hand and to religion on the other, should be kept forever separate and distinct. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846..

Mr. Evans stated they have declared in that Bill of Rights that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences: that no man shall be compelled to attend or support a place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience: and that no preference shall ever be given by law, to any religious societies, or mode of worship. Is not that article amply sufficient guard and security against the union of church and state? If not, I will go with any gentleman to make it stronger. But how does the exclusion of the ministers of religion from our legislative halls tend to defeat the ruin of church and state. What bearing has such an exclusion upon it? I say it has none at all. Page 184, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

****************************

Here is the Texans view of Bible In Public Schools

The Bible in Public Schools was Tryanny

And there is now, sir, even in the-city of New York, a great religious excitement, I or as they say, a Bible party is forming, for the purpose of compelling the use of Bibles in the public schools, whether parents wish it or not. There is one class of Christians who think that the Scriptures, if placed in uninstructed hands, may lead to evil: that they require to be explained, and wish the great principle of morality also to be taught in the public schools, But whether the principle is right or not, it is an act of tyranny to compel any denomination to use any book whatever at school.

Source of information:

Representative James Love (Galveston County) at the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1845. The Debates of the Texas Convention of 1845; Page 170.

tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/pdf/pdf1845debates/00000016.pdf

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:23 pm

Bronwen wrote: Thanks for the clarification! Now I understand your position perfectly.

I use the terms "advisory power" and "authority to recommend" to mean non-coersive methods used by the government to influence the duty that we owe to the Creator. I assume that the issue of government use of force and violence in religious matters is not even open to consideration.

In the context of executive religious proclamations, James Madison, said, "An advisory Government is a contradiction in terms." See Detached Memorada by James Madison.

FF

FredFlash · Post by **FredFlash** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:41 pm

Accountable wrote: My stand is that churches provide a moral anchor that influences our general culture. One doesn't have to attend church to be influenced by it. It's just that simple. The danger I see is that some groups are so zealous in their fight to get religion out of gov't, they are pushing it out of the very culture.

I would be interested to know exactly how you believe the government should be involved in religion.

FF

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:50 pm

FredFlash wrote: I would be interested to know exactly how you believe the government should be involved in religion.

FF
In a protective role, as with all of our freedoms. IMO, the gov't is far too involved in our lives as it is. Somewhere around here I posted a pretty good line about considering churches (in general, not one specifically) as a fourth separate branch of gov't - the moral branch. I'll find it and drop it in here.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:51 pm

It was actually post #45 of this very thread.

Accountable wrote: I don't think marriage should have a legal standing. It's a moral/holy institution. Keep it in the church.

I thought about this as I was filling the truck. It's the second best place to think next to the shower:

Just like we are shirking our individual responsibilities and expecting the gov't to take care of us, we have allowed our churches to cede too much of their responsibility to the gov't. They are becoming defunct, useless. This is the erosion of the separation. The gov't is becoming the moral authority because we are marginalizing the church.

The government is becoming the de facto church.

We talk about the three branches of gov't - legislative, judicial, executive. I realized we have a fourth branch, the moral. We have separation between the legislative and judicial just as we have between the church and state. The moral branch is vital, and it is vital to keep it out of the legislature.

But this rabid phobia of anything religious has taken moral responsibility and either put it in the hands of politicians or (arguably worse) abandoned it altogether.

We need to take moral authority away from the politicians and give it back to the churches where it belongs.

And no, Ben, it doesn't mean everybody would be forced to go to church. Moral behavior begets moral behavior. Just as in the past, the churches can teach enough people to behave morally that it will permeate the rest of society.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:12 pm

FredFlash wrote: Dear ChiptBeef:

The Reynolds Court said nothing about our government being obligated to enforce civil law in keeping with basic Christian tenets; the Reynolds Court said nothing about polygamy and bigamy violating general Christian principles; and the Reynolds Court did not even use the word "Christian" in its opinion. The doctine of "separation of church and state" was adopted by every State in the Union. I suggest you read the State Consitutions in effect in 1947.
I never quoted from the opinion. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I merely wrote of the results, in a general sense, which is proven by the facts of the case. Prior to the 1947 Everson case, "separation of church and state" was left up to the states to define. It was the 1947 Supreme Court decision that codified that doctrine at the federal level, to wit nationalization.

The intent of our "Founding Fathers" is clear from their own words. The path was defined by our first Chief Justice, John Jay; American patriot Patrick Henry, and many others. http://www.errantskeptics.org/FoundingFathers.htm

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:42 pm

The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 21, 1868 with the intent of providing civil rights to former slaves. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court comingled the 14th and 1st Amendment by claiming the 14th Amendment now allowed the Court to apply the 1st Amendment to the states and not just to the federal government, which was the original intent. That interpretation by the Court was also in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments).

This was explained in the book Judicial Supremacy: The Supreme Court on Trial by Robert Dornan and Csaba Vedlik, Jr. (MA: Plymouth Rock Foundation), Page 85.

"The Bill of Rights was intended to be a restriction on the national government, not the states. Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1833 decision of Barron v. Baltimore emphasized that the Bill of Rights restricted only the national government. But since the 1940s, the Supreme Court has interpreted Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment... as incorporating the Bill of Rights, i.e., making it applicable to the states. The Supreme Court has thus achieved precisely the opposite of what was intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights: instead of being solely a restriction on the national government, the Bill of Rights is now a restriction on the states."

We've read at least one lawyer's opinion in this thread. I found another attorney's view of "The myth of church-state separation" from August 2003. I'm sure his name will launch immediate, rapid-fire attacks, but I think he makes some valid points. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=34343