Does it have to be in the constitution?

Our country is defined by more than just the constitution.

Some of the historical rewrites mentioned..... They CANT be serious. No way something this blatant can be real, can it? Are they really that deranged?

Seriously, taking a look at a couple that offer specfics...

- Slave trade to Atlantic triangular trade? what a GROSS euphism and avoidance of the real topic there. They were slaves right? We were trading em right?

- Civil Rights Movement to "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes". What kind of white pride inspired horsecrap is this? Nevermind we have a black president now, minor detail!


This article is probably more to incite folks like myself who have a real deep seeded dislike of evangelical doings .

Funny - I see no implication of a SEPERATION of church and state implied...

Too many people love to try to say this is a freedom FROM religion - which it is not - it is the freedom OF religion. If your religion is that you want to worship the almighty spaghetti monster - you can. But freedom OF religion - and the FREE EXERCISE thereof means that there cannot be a prohibition of religion in government - or else your limiting that free exercise. That does not mean that government can establish a religion - aka force you to conform to one - but it also should not limit anyone's ability to practice theirs as they see fit provided it does not infringe on another persons rights.

Also - its amazing how people get all worked up over an article.... would really be wise for people to look at how the "GAWKER" even describes itself....

"Gossip from Manhattan and the Beltway to Hollywood and the Valley."

Just so you all can understand:

Gossip is defined by dictionary.com as "idle talk or rumor" and "hearsay"....
In other words, you have nothing but a lot of unsubstantiated and non-referenced rubbish thrown out by a left wing rumor mill with the intent to incite outrage....

Boy did some of ya'll fall for that....

Haplo, I challenge you, or anyone, to find any mention of church, God or Christ in the constitution.

No, the Constitution does not directly use that phrase, but the man behind it, the "Father of the Constitution" and author of the First Amendment, James Madison, certainly believed it.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
-Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
-Detached Memoranda, circa 1820

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
-Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

The only mention of religion within the body of the Constitution is Article VI, Section 3, which says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The founders were very aware of the domination religion had held over every government in Europe. Most of the people who had come here seeking "religious freedom" had then enforced intolerance of anyone who disagreed, even the legendary Pilgrims. Roger Williams was banished from Massachussetts by those same Puritans for preaching religious freedom.

But I have a personal question. Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right. There is now no separation of Church and State. What does that mean to you? What changes will you make?

I'm curious.

And if so which "Church" would that exactly be?

Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant flavor #1 , Protestant flavor #2, ... Protestant flavor #57, ...

.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

Do not complain that again I repeat this link. Same questions repeated ad nauseum deserve not different answers, but the answer just being repeated as often.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/separation.html

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/trust.html

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/under_god.html

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/principals.html

But you must understand that her "education" advisor explains that slavery is justified by the bible, after all as they want to "return" America to biblical law will the biblical slavery laws make a "comeback".
I do like the bit about the growth of the abolition movement (which they incredibly claim led the world). It appears the growth in the abolition movement was due to Americas slave laws not being aligned with biblical slave law which meant the inconsistancy made slavery too difficult to reform gradually or peacefully:doh:

two thoughts here, none related to the thread topic:

1. . The separation of church and state is implied by the text of the U.S. constitution of 1787, most notably this part:

In 1787, the standard practice in all European countries was to have one state religion imposed on all the inhabitants. People who practiced other religions were tolerated, but discriminated against. I seem to recall that there were heated discussions on whether the U.S. should have a state religion, but this was abandoned in favour of the present text which made it clear that the U.S. government could not favour one religion over another, a quite revolutionary concept at the time;

2. Canada was a British colony at the time. Most of the inhabitants were french catholics. In 1763, when Canada became a British colony, the British guaranteed the French, the free exercise of their catholic religion and guaranteed the legal status of the catholic church. This was also quite unorthodox at the time since the current practice was to force all the inhabitants of a conquered country to convert to the state religion. Of course, the British had done this for practical reasons since they knew it would be dificult to rule Canada without the tacit consent of the Canadiens. The U.S. rebels made many overture to Canada to join the U.S. Many of these were rebuffed because the Canadiens did not trust the U.S. leaders to respect their religious freedoms. They had more faith in King George.

I reread Haplo's post, and I would like to address one idea that hinges on which way you look at it.

I have heard the phrase "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" used before, and I think you mean it a different way than I do. When I hear that line I fear people wanting to enforce religion on all. You seem to fear that "freedom from religion" means removing religion entirely. I think it depends on who is saying it.

Same with "Separation of Church and State". That phrase means that the government doesn't interfere with religions, and religions don't interfere with the government. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's exactly what the founders wanted, so yes it is directly implied in the First Amendment. What part of that do you disagree with?

So the question really comes down to what the speaker means when he uses that phrase.

The confusion here is because of a very simple reason: some people think their"freedom" includes that their freedom goes beyond that of others, and that is because they claim that freedom has to be a totally unlimited, unregulated quality. This claim for unlimited own freedom necessarily brings people into conflict with others - simply because there are other people. Such conflict can only be avoided were both sides understand that there is a natural borderline for own freedom - which is set to be were own freedom starts to limit the freedom of others.

In shorter words, what such people really mean when they talk about "freedom", is this: "My freedom". Freedom of others is of considerably less concern as long as they do not join one's own peer-group.

The causative principle, which in this context would mean that somebody limiting the freedom of others for the sake of his own superior freedom is responsible for the conflict resulting from this and thus has to solve it by stopping to behave the way he does, gets ignored, explicitly excused or silently implied on the grounds of an argument that tries to justify such violation by ideological/religious claims that include that one has a religious/ideologic "obligation" to actively missionise and spread one's own belief, faith, ideology. I must not explicitly describe how much violence, cruelty, barbarism and inhumane terror has been caused by this - history speaks for itself.

Freedom of religion is freedom to practice one's own religion - but only as far and in a communal context where the form of it's practicing does not force others - who do not want to participate in that - to make extra concessions, to change their own habits, or needing to adjust their own lifestyle. In other words: freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. You cannot separate the two without installing tyranny and supression. Nobody has the right to demand others that they have to take note of oneself practicing one's religion. An if others force me to take note of them doing their thing, instead of me being allowed to just stay unaware of their practicing, I rate that as an attack on my personal freedom and rights, and I react accordingly - by counterattacking. Because my right to be "free" does not count less than theirs, and when they cause the annoyance, then it is up to them to stop it - it is not up to me to adapt to them. Again, this is elementary reason in form of the causative principle.

I think this is the intention of what the American historic papers and paragraphs in the accoprding documents have to say on the relation between state and religion.

therefore I usually ignore and leave in peace all religious people who practice and do their thing inside their own small community of fellow believers, or inside their private sphere, as long as they do not actively, without being demanded, approach me with their thing (whatever it is), or worse: as long as they do not try to change communal structures and the constituional order of the nation I live in (by invading the curriculum of the education system for example, or forming legislation, and more), to bring it in accordance with their faith.

If there are two people, and the one plays his radio so loud that he annoys the neighbourhood, and the other guy as well: what is the appropriate demand to make: that all others have to move away ("if you don't like it, get away!"), or that they have to play their own radios louder, or have to get used to it - or the one with the loud radio having to reduce the volume of his radio...?

Especially religious bigots and moralizers do not understand this, because in a way they all are supremacists. They run their life by a principle of assuming that they are better than the others and thus the others have to give ground. And even when these moralizers are less fanatic in their action and leaving others alone when being demanded - you still have a high chance of getting that one last greeting of theirs, saying: "You may not believe in my god, but even in your disbelief my god still loves you (that fantastic my god is)". Which only on the surface is a kind phrase, but in reality displays the utmost arrogance and supremacism possible to human thinking. What that somebody is telling in fact when using versions of that phrase is simply this:

"I am better than you, you poor little creature."

Religion. Lovely.

:yep:

Or as my old pa used to say, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends right at the tip of my nose."

Funny, I've met far more tolerant Christians than atheists, and I'm one of the latter.

Really? How many holy wars have atheists started? Burnings at the stake?

I've met a few who sounded like religious fanatics (anti-religious fanatics?), but by-and-large most atheists I've met wouldn't hurt anyone who disagreed with them.

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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."
When it is not allowed to make laws establishing a state religion or preventing one...I'd say were pretty much supposed to be impartial as religion goes

Hitler and Stalin were athiests. It'd be wrong to imply that non believers are any less murderous than anyone else. Religion is just a handy excuse, a non religious excuse would serve just as well.