Separation of Church and State...

CaptainHaplo · 06-30-09, 06:37 AM

I so often see this referenced in everything from political discussions to lawsuits. Its "unconstitutional" some claim. Ok - here is the challenge. For all those that feel or think there is some line drawn in the constitution that says that there must be such a seperation, by all means point it out to me.

While the constitution does state that there shall be no government ADOPTION (aka forced state) religion, there is nothing in there that I can find that says that religion of any type must be barred from the workings of government.

If there were such a clause of "seperation" in the constitution, then the Declaration of Independance would have to be ruled "unconstitutional", as it states that:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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.".

If such a declaration is based on laws of GOD - which is not allowed in government, then the document and the actions based upon it (and previous documents) such as the Revolutionary War were also "unconstitutional" and leave us in a quandry? Should those who believe religion and government must "never touch" then think we should immediately place ourselves back under the British Crown?

So all you anti-religion subsimmers with knowledge of American history - where is this "seperation" mandated in the constitution?

Skybird · 06-30-09, 07:25 AM

Haven't we been there often before? Must we go through all of it again?

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.

You certainly know where that is from.

More food for thought, plenty of it:
http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/separation.html

Note the links on the left side.

SteamWake · 06-30-09, 08:15 AM

1st amendment

http://www.usconstitution.net/

AngusJS · 06-30-09, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I so often see this referenced in everything from political discussions to lawsuits. Its "unconstitutional" some claim. Ok - here is the challenge. For all those that feel or think there is some line drawn in the constitution that says that there must be such a seperation, by all means point it out to me.

While the constitution does state that there shall be no government ADOPTION (aka forced state) religion, there is nothing in there that I can find that says that religion of any type must be barred from the workings of government.

If there were such a clause of "seperation" in the constitution, then the Declaration of Independance would have to be ruled "unconstitutional", as it states that:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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.".

If such a declaration is based on laws of GOD - which is not allowed in government, then the document and the actions based upon it (and previous documents) such as the Revolutionary War were also "unconstitutional" and leave us in a quandry? Should those who believe religion and government must "never touch" then think we should immediately place ourselves back under the British Crown?

So all you anti-religion subsimmers with knowledge of American history - where is this "seperation" mandated in the constitution?

The US government is not founded on the Declaration of Independence. It is founded on the Constitution, which contains the Establishment Clause found in the 1st Amendment. This has been interpreted to mean that the government must not prefer or promote one belief over another. So, they can't run around erecting crosses on government land and forcing kids to pray in public schools. Likewise, they can't erect stelae engraved with The God Delusion (regardless of how cool that would be), or force kids to renounce any deity. Isn't that the best solution?

The Declaration of Independence was signed 11 years before the Constitution (which, BTW, contains no reference to any deity).

Max2147 · 06-30-09, 09:58 AM

The Declaration of Independence is not United States law. It has substantial moral weight in our country, but zero legal weight.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state. See Everson v. Board of Education and Engel v. Vitale. Supreme Court rulings are considered United States law.

In addition to the First Amendment, there is Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which reads "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So technically any oath of public office that forces a person to state they believe in God is unconstitutional. "So help me God" is not offically in the Presidential oath of office - it has just become a tradition.

Think about it this way - if religion is allowed to influence politics, then politics has to be allowed to influence religion. Do you really want politicians in Washington determining what the preacher at your local church can or can't say?

mookiemookie · 06-30-09, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If such a declaration is based on laws of GOD

Be careful how you use the word "GOD". The founding fathers were deists, not Christians. When they mention "GOD" they mean a creator, not the god of Christianity.

Furthermore, the laws and rights outlined in the Constitution have their basis in English Common Law which derived from Roman Law and Natural Law, both of which predate Christianity.

So no, the Declaration and Constitution were not based on Christian law.

Aramike · 06-30-09, 12:47 PM

I've always maintained that the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers are irrelevent in any discussion of Constitutional Law, as they wrote what they wrote. If they wanted it to mean something else, then they would've wrote that.

There are really two parts of this debate but oddly, only one ever seems to be focused upon.

I believe that there IS a LEGAL seperation between church and state. Let's use another form of the word "establishment" for a moment. An establishment of religion is known as a church, among other things.

But the part that people convieniently let slide by is "...or prohibiting the *FREE* excercise thereof...".

What does "free" mean? Why, "freedom" of course. To wit, the Constitution specifically states that, say, a kid can pray in a public school, as Congress shall make *NO LAW* respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE excercise thereof.

Furthermore, this would allow for an icon such as, say, the Ten Commandments to be displayed outside of a courthouse. How, you ask? Remember: *CONGRESS* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor may it prohibit the free excercise thereof. Meaning that should the PEOPLE vote in, say, a referrendum to display religious imagery, then Congress is prevented from preventing said display.

So yes, there IS a separation of church and state. But it's not quite what the "Freedom From Religion" bigots would have us believe.

Sailor Steve · 06-30-09, 12:57 PM

I pretty much agree with Aramike, with the caveat that since the Civil War the Constitution has more and more been interpreted as applying to all lower government institutions. I'm not sure whether I like that or not, but in this case I think that government, any government, interference with religion is a bad thing, and vice versa.

I like to ask people like Haplo the opposite question: Okay, let's assume that you are right and there is absolutely no separation of Church and State (a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson, who dislike the Constitution, but cheerfully adopted by his friend James Madison, the "Father of The Constitution"). What does that mean to you? What changes do you want to make? I hear people on that side of the argument say the words "No Separation!", but I never hear where they want that to lead.

razark · 06-30-09, 01:31 PM

If a private group wishes to establish a memorial, or erect the ten commandments at a courthouse, etc., they should be free to do so, provided that government money is not used. However, this needs to be applied to all religious groups equally.

If a Christian group is free to put up a Christian display, then a Jewish group is free to put up a Jewish monument, a Muslim group is free to put up an Islamic monument. Soon, a Wiccan group will put up their monument. Shortly afterwards, a neopagan group will put up their monument. The atheists will need a place to put up a blank rock. Of course, no one will object when a Satanic group puts up a monument to their Dark Lord, right? It's just free exercise of religion.

In reality, each group will oppose the other groups' monuments, and complain about some "false religion's" symbols being granted the same status with their own. The courthouse yard will become a cluttered mess of monuments and displays, all of them being contested and vandalized by others.

Or, we could just apply the other equality, and remove all of the monuments and displays from government property. If a group wishes to put up a display on their own property, then they are free to do it, wihtout government interference. But they also need to accpet other groups' rights to do the exact same thing.

It's not about being offended, it's about being considerate of others and allowing them the same rights you wish to have for yourself. This equality needs to extend to all levels of government, not just monuments. Passing laws based on purely religious reasons should not be done, either. If you want to hold organized prayers in school, each group must be given their chance to lead the prayer. If you have an issue with your child being told to participate in prayers to Allah in school, there is a parent somewhere that is opposed to their child being told to pray to your deity. If your religion has a youth group at school, don't be surprised if another religion wants to have a youth group at school as well.

Skybird · 06-30-09, 01:34 PM

Every freedom has limits. It must have limits, else the one's freedom is practiced at the cost of the freedom of the other. A freedom of practicing religion does not mean that you have a right to do it in a way or to foster religious ideas where you limit or harass others not wishing to need to take care for or note of your practicing. This is often overseen, and this is where Islam takes is claim from that it shall not be opposed, for it just practices it's teaching (that happen to include being dominant), and that also is where people camp when claiming a right of free religious practicing in order to impose christian values and ideas onto state and society and public life and public education.

This is by Ulysses Grant:

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."

Or as I used to say: keep thy religion to thyself. Practice how you want but make sure you do not demand other needing to take care of it or taking note of it or must chnage their life becasue of you, not to mention job and business and public offices. Your religion is your private business, and nobody elses. Your relation to your deity/ies is an issue between you and him/her/them, and nobody else than you should need to care for it. But where you claim your religion is such that you must be public and must missionise and must actively try to spread your faith, you are a nuisance for others, and I reserve the right to use whatever measurements needed (even violance, if that is what it takes) to throw you back and show you your place, for your rights are not more precious than my right not to be affected by your faith. My (and other people'S) right to live free and non-caring for your faith is a thousand times more precious and humane and valuable than your faith could ever be - whatever it is that you believe. that is true if you are muslim. that is true if you are Christian. That is true if you are Jewish. That is true if you are areligious and/or atheist.

Believe what you want, but practice it in your privatesphere only, do not demand others to step back just so that you can have more freedoms than the others who should sacrifice their freedom for the sake of your religion. You bring cults and reilgious practices into the game - you are responsible to remove them again. It's called originator principle (at least in german...).

there are two ways to watch TV in your flat and listen to music in your appartement: with a volume setting that does not irritate others - or with sound being too loud. In the case of the latter, it is not the others who need to accept it. It is you who need to decrease the volume and stop behaving like a ?"%!$#?. But if you listejhn to it with modest settings and I must not listen to it in my own flat whenever you want, it is not my business and I couldn't care less for what kind of music you listen to, and how often, and I will leave you perfectly alone, and you can listen to your music all day long if you wish to do that.

Skybird · 06-30-09, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razark

The atheists will need a place to put up a blank rock.

Oh, do we...?

mookiemookie · 06-30-09, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razark

If a private group wishes to establish a memorial, or erect the ten commandments at a courthouse, etc., they should be free to do so, provided that government money is not used. However, this needs to be applied to all religious groups equally.

If a Christian group is free to put up a Christian display, then a Jewish group is free to put up a Jewish monument, a Muslim group is free to put up an Islamic monument. Soon, a Wiccan group will put up their monument. Shortly afterwards, a neopagan group will put up their monument. The atheists will need a place to put up a blank rock. Of course, no one will object when a Satanic group puts up a monument to their Dark Lord, right? It's just free exercise of religion.

In reality, each group will oppose the other groups' monuments, and complain about some "false religion's" symbols being granted the same status with their own. The courthouse yard will become a cluttered mess of monuments and displays, all of them being contested and vandalized by others.

Or, we could just apply the other equality, and remove all of the monuments and displays from government property. If a group wishes to put up a display on their own property, then they are free to do it, wihtout government interference. But they also need to accpet other groups' rights to do the exact same thing.

It's not about being offended, it's about being considerate of others and allowing them the same rights you wish to have for yourself. This equality needs to extend to all levels of government, not just monuments. Passing laws based on purely religious reasons should not be done, either. If you want to hold organized prayers in school, each group must be given their chance to lead the prayer. If you have an issue with your child being told to participate in prayers to Allah in school, there is a parent somewhere that is opposed to their child being told to pray to your deity. If your religion has a youth group at school, don't be surprised if another religion wants to have a youth group at school as well.

Aramike · 06-30-09, 02:07 PM

Quote:

If a private group wishes to establish a memorial, or erect the ten commandments at a courthouse, etc., they should be free to do so, provided that government money is not used. However, this needs to be applied to all religious groups equally.

Why? I don't see this need at all, especially not Constitutionally.

razark · 06-30-09, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Why? I don't see this need at all, especially not Constitutionally.

If the government allows one group to place a monument, but denies another group the same privillage, it is showing favoritism, which is not allowed.

That's why.

Aramike · 06-30-09, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razark

If the government allows one group to place a monument, but denies another group the same privillage, it is showing favoritism, which is not allowed.

That's why.

Where's does the Constitution say any of that? I think you're making that up.

First of all, it's not up to the government to "allow" or "disallow" anything religious whatsoever. "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress is on the sidelines. As such, there's no such thing as favoritism in this case.

That then leaves it up to the will of the PEOPLE (not the will of the PERSON, mind you). That's where the democratic process comes into play. If the majority of people want a certain symbol to represent them, than that's who wins - that's the whole point of a democratic republic.

Indeed, the democratic process shows favoritism to the majority, but that's why certain rights are exempt from democracy.

Sorry, but if your argument is "favoritism" and "fairness", you don't have an argument Constitutionally speaking. You're arguing the equivolent of not allowing stairs on public land because lazy people don't want to traverse them and would prefer an automatic walk.

06-30-09, 06:37 AM	#1
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Separation of Church and State... I so often see this referenced in everything from political discussions to lawsuits. Its "unconstitutional" some claim. Ok - here is the challenge. For all those that feel or think there is some line drawn in the constitution that says that there must be such a seperation, by all means point it out to me. While the constitution does state that there shall be no government ADOPTION (aka forced state) religion, there is nothing in there that I can find that says that religion of any type must be barred from the workings of government. If there were such a clause of "seperation" in the constitution, then the Declaration of Independance would have to be ruled "unconstitutional", as it states that: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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.". If such a declaration is based on laws of GOD - which is not allowed in government, then the document and the actions based upon it (and previous documents) such as the Revolutionary War were also "unconstitutional" and leave us in a quandry? Should those who believe religion and government must "never touch" then think we should immediately place ourselves back under the British Crown? So all you anti-religion subsimmers with knowledge of American history - where is this "seperation" mandated in the constitution? __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-30-09, 07:25 AM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Haven't we been there often before? Must we go through all of it again? 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. You certainly know where that is from. More food for thought, plenty of it: http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/separation.html Note the links on the left side. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 06-30-09 at 07:37 AM.

06-30-09, 08:15 AM	#3
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	1st amendment http://www.usconstitution.net/ __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648

06-30-09, 12:57 PM	#8
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	I pretty much agree with Aramike, with the caveat that since the Civil War the Constitution has more and more been interpreted as applying to all lower government institutions. I'm not sure whether I like that or not, but in this case I think that government, any government, interference with religion is a bad thing, and vice versa. I like to ask people like Haplo the opposite question: Okay, let's assume that you are right and there is absolutely no separation of Church and State (a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson, who dislike the Constitution, but cheerfully adopted by his friend James Madison, the "Father of The Constitution"). What does that mean to you? What changes do you want to make? I hear people on that side of the argument say the words "No Separation!", but I never hear where they want that to lead. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

06-30-09, 01:34 PM	#10
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Every freedom has limits. It must have limits, else the one's freedom is practiced at the cost of the freedom of the other. A freedom of practicing religion does not mean that you have a right to do it in a way or to foster religious ideas where you limit or harass others not wishing to need to take care for or note of your practicing. This is often overseen, and this is where Islam takes is claim from that it shall not be opposed, for it just practices it's teaching (that happen to include being dominant), and that also is where people camp when claiming a right of free religious practicing in order to impose christian values and ideas onto state and society and public life and public education. This is by Ulysses Grant: "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated." Or as I used to say: keep thy religion to thyself. Practice how you want but make sure you do not demand other needing to take care of it or taking note of it or must chnage their life becasue of you, not to mention job and business and public offices. Your religion is your private business, and nobody elses. Your relation to your deity/ies is an issue between you and him/her/them, and nobody else than you should need to care for it. But where you claim your religion is such that you must be public and must missionise and must actively try to spread your faith, you are a nuisance for others, and I reserve the right to use whatever measurements needed (even violance, if that is what it takes) to throw you back and show you your place, for your rights are not more precious than my right not to be affected by your faith. My (and other people'S) right to live free and non-caring for your faith is a thousand times more precious and humane and valuable than your faith could ever be - whatever it is that you believe. that is true if you are muslim. that is true if you are Christian. That is true if you are Jewish. That is true if you are areligious and/or atheist. Believe what you want, but practice it in your privatesphere only, do not demand others to step back just so that you can have more freedoms than the others who should sacrifice their freedom for the sake of your religion. You bring cults and reilgious practices into the game - you are responsible to remove them again. It's called originator principle (at least in german...). there are two ways to watch TV in your flat and listen to music in your appartement: with a volume setting that does not irritate others - or with sound being too loud. In the case of the latter, it is not the others who need to accept it. It is you who need to decrease the volume and stop behaving like a ?"%!$#?. But if you listejhn to it with modest settings and I must not listen to it in my own flat whenever you want, it is not my business and I couldn't care less for what kind of music you listen to, and how often, and I will leave you perfectly alone, and you can listen to your music all day long if you wish to do that. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 06-30-09 at 01:51 PM.

06-30-09, 09:58 AM	#5
Max2147 Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 714 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The Declaration of Independence is not United States law. It has substantial moral weight in our country, but zero legal weight. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state. See Everson v. Board of Education and Engel v. Vitale. Supreme Court rulings are considered United States law. In addition to the First Amendment, there is Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which reads "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So technically any oath of public office that forces a person to state they believe in God is unconstitutional. "So help me God" is not offically in the Presidential oath of office - it has just become a tradition. Think about it this way - if religion is allowed to influence politics, then politics has to be allowed to influence religion. Do you really want politicians in Washington determining what the preacher at your local church can or can't say?

06-30-09, 12:47 PM	#7
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	I've always maintained that the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers are irrelevent in any discussion of Constitutional Law, as they wrote what they wrote. If they wanted it to mean something else, then they would've wrote that. There are really two parts of this debate but oddly, only one ever seems to be focused upon. I believe that there IS a LEGAL seperation between church and state. Let's use another form of the word "establishment" for a moment. An establishment of religion is known as a church, among other things. But the part that people convieniently let slide by is "...or prohibiting the FREE excercise thereof...". What does "free" mean? Why, "freedom" of course. To wit, the Constitution specifically states that, say, a kid can pray in a public school, as Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE excercise thereof. Furthermore, this would allow for an icon such as, say, the Ten Commandments to be displayed outside of a courthouse. How, you ask? Remember: CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor may it prohibit the free excercise thereof. Meaning that should the PEOPLE vote in, say, a referrendum to display religious imagery, then Congress is prevented from preventing said display. So yes, there IS a separation of church and state. But it's not quite what the "Freedom From Religion" bigots would have us believe.

06-30-09, 01:31 PM	#9
razark Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,731 Downloads: 393 Uploads: 12	If a private group wishes to establish a memorial, or erect the ten commandments at a courthouse, etc., they should be free to do so, provided that government money is not used. However, this needs to be applied to all religious groups equally. If a Christian group is free to put up a Christian display, then a Jewish group is free to put up a Jewish monument, a Muslim group is free to put up an Islamic monument. Soon, a Wiccan group will put up their monument. Shortly afterwards, a neopagan group will put up their monument. The atheists will need a place to put up a blank rock. Of course, no one will object when a Satanic group puts up a monument to their Dark Lord, right? It's just free exercise of religion. In reality, each group will oppose the other groups' monuments, and complain about some "false religion's" symbols being granted the same status with their own. The courthouse yard will become a cluttered mess of monuments and displays, all of them being contested and vandalized by others. Or, we could just apply the other equality, and remove all of the monuments and displays from government property. If a group wishes to put up a display on their own property, then they are free to do it, wihtout government interference. But they also need to accpet other groups' rights to do the exact same thing. It's not about being offended, it's about being considerate of others and allowing them the same rights you wish to have for yourself. This equality needs to extend to all levels of government, not just monuments. Passing laws based on purely religious reasons should not be done, either. If you want to hold organized prayers in school, each group must be given their chance to lead the prayer. If you have an issue with your child being told to participate in prayers to Allah in school, there is a parent somewhere that is opposed to their child being told to pray to your deity. If your religion has a youth group at school, don't be surprised if another religion wants to have a youth group at school as well.