Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to hear from any followers of non-Christian religions who equally object to the separation of church and state as outlined in our Constitution's (the USA's) 1st amendment. Christians claim that such a wall was not intended, does not exist and that it stifles their freedom of religion (and their divine "right" to run the show, apparently).
Any American Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Muslims etc who feel as oppressed by the wall? (and Jews, despite the claims by Christians this country was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles).
After all, your voices are already woefully under-represented in our schools, government and law. Not to mention the public square, cable TV, radio, internet etc..
The first ammendment does not state such as thing as separation of church and state. The basic point in the first ammendment is that "Congress shall make no law..." The states could make laws and in many cases the states in the beginning of the nation included in their constitutions many religioius practices in peoples everyday lives. In some case encouraged it. The point was not to force what people had to believe. The US Congress was not there to meddle in the middle of that issue, the states were supposed to be the ones handling that which also followed the spirit of the 10th ammendment i.e. that anything not enumerated for Congress to handle the states would take care of it, religions would fall under the states responsibilities.
However, to some degree what I just wrote is a mute point becaus as time passed by Congress has encroached more and more in matters that belong to the states to the degree we have now.
Also, the expression about separation of church and state is used from a letter Jefferson wrote. Even then it seem the expression has been spun around for those that want to use it for their views. If you want to learn more about it, read the book "Original Intent" by David Barton. It has lots of court cases regarding this issue and how the states originally were the ones handling the religion issue. Take care.
The fact that the majority of replies here are from Christians, basically hijacking a thread which was expressly directed at non-Christians speaks volumes.
The first ammendment does not state such as thing as separation of church and state.
Yes, it does.
If even for the simple reason that you can't have freedom of religion without such a separation.
Quote:
The basic point in the first amendment is that "Congress shall make no law..."
...respecting an establishment of religion
And the only way that is possible is to keep religion ond government separate.
Quote:
The states could make laws and in many cases the states in the beginning of the nation included in their constitutions many religioius practices in peoples everyday lives. In some case encouraged it.
The states could do alot of things in the beginning that were wrong. Fortunately those kinks were/are being worked out.
Quote:
The point was not to force what people had to believe.
That's the point of SOCAS.
Quote:
The US Congress was not there to meddle in the middle of that issue, the states were supposed to be the ones handling that which also followed the spirit of the 10th ammendment i.e. that anything not enumerated for Congress to handle the states would take care of it, religions would fall under the states responsibilities.
Sorry but religion is too dangerous a subject to be under state jurisdiction. You can't have a free country with some of its states being run almost as theocracies. Civil rights have to be protected across the board and the only way to do that is with a separation of church and state,
Quote:
However, to some degree what I just wrote is a mute point becaus as time passed by Congress has encroached more and more in matters that belong to the states to the degree we have now.
The states are subject to the Constitution. That's not encroachment, that is the law.
Quote:
Also, the expression about separation of church and state is used from a letter Jefferson wrote.
Ah, but it is also used on many occasions by James Madison, THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Thomas Jefferson was also a major contributer to the Constitution. So I'll take his and Mr. Madison's word as to what was intended in the 1st amendment over Christians with an obviously self-serving agenda and little understanding of this country's true history.
Quote:
Even then it seem the expression has been spun around for those that want to use it for their views. If you want to learn more about it, read the book "Original Intent" by David Barton. It has lots of court cases regarding this issue and how the states originally were the ones handling the religion issue. Take care.
LOL, David Barton is a known liar and a quack who wouldn't know real American history if it bit him on the ass. He's one of the lead talking heads for the theocratic Christian dominionists who aim to destroy our Constitution. If you want to see his revisionist claims totally shredded, read Chris Rodda's book "Liars For Jesus".
Last edited by MrBlueSky_; 07-19-2012 at 09:25 PM..
The fact that the majority of replies here are from Christians, basically hijacking a thread which was expressly directed at non-Christians speaks volumes.
And the fact that you opened a thread only as a vehicle to slide through a snarky insult lamely disguised as a "question" speaks volumes as well.
The first ammendment does not state such as thing as separation of church and state. The basic point in the first ammendment is that "Congress shall make no law..." The states could make laws and in many cases the states in the beginning of the nation included in their constitutions many religioius practices in peoples everyday lives. In some case encouraged it. The point was not to force what people had to believe. The US Congress was not there to meddle in the middle of that issue, the states were supposed to be the ones handling that which also followed the spirit of the 10th ammendment i.e. that anything not enumerated for Congress to handle the states would take care of it, religions would fall under the states responsibilities.
However, to some degree what I just wrote is a mute point becaus as time passed by Congress has encroached more and more in matters that belong to the states to the degree we have now.
Also, the expression about separation of church and state is used from a letter Jefferson wrote. Even then it seem the expression has been spun around for those that want to use it for their views. If you want to learn more about it, read the book "Original Intent" by David Barton. It has lots of court cases regarding this issue and how the states originally were the ones handling the religion issue. Take care.
The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) clarified that all governments in the United States are subject to the Constitution. If that is unacceptable to you, the proper course of action is to petition your government (under your own 1st Amendment rights) through your representatives to have Congress pass an Amendment and send it to the States for ratification that would repeal the 14th Amendment.
Incidentally, every law Congress passes is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. Find one you don't like and take it to court.
Jefferson was not alone in his understanding of what the founders had created. During the Administration of John Adams, the Treaty of Tripoli made it VERY clear that the US was "in no way a Christian country." That treaty dates back to 1797. As recently as the 1980's, President Reagan made it very clear that there is no religion in government in this country.
As far as this issue being "spun around," that is a fairly recent thing being done by fundamental Christians.
islam does not want separation of church and state they want replacement of state with church and violent overthrow is the traditional method of accomplishment. but islam does not have the--- turn the other cheek--- policy, so they are not near as much fun to pick on as christians.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 07-20-2012 at 10:24 AM..
Funny how the truth is always "snarky" and insulting to Christians.
As so you just do it again. LOL, you're just too silly, aren't you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_
The question is valid. I'm still waiting to hear from ANY non Christians who oppose separation of church/religion and government.
Uh, no, it's not a valid question, it's a silly babylike prejudice, just own it if you're going to do it. And how you accidentally missed Post No. 20 is a mystery, since there were so few other responses.
But, I too am interested as to whether any non-Christians will chime in. Will check back.
Now I think that no matter what religious organization you belong to it should not have any influence on the laws and the running of our government and I do believe that the U.S. Supreme Court also agrees with that.
You know it's interesting, people of all different faiths and beliefs will come on here and claimed all sorts of ridiculous things about our Constitution and Bill of Rights and yet very few of them have even read those documents. They want to claim that this country was founded on their so called Christian principles, and yet nowhere in any of those official documents is there even the first mention of any religion. My suggestion is that before anybody makes any comments about any particular documents, that first they read them so that they can better understand what that document is about and not be made a fool.
If even for the simple reason that you can't have freedom of religion without such a separation.
No it does not. Quote "separation of church and state in the amendment. Then I will retract my statement. What you are doing is inferring that is what it is saying, no such thing.
...respecting an establishment of religion
And the only way that is possible is to keep religion ond government separate.
Again, Make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Who? Congress. In other words Congress cannot make any laws that support establishment. Why did they come up with this? To ensure the United States would not have a system like having an established church like England had. In other words no official church from the state.
The states could do alot of things in the beginning that were wrong. Fortunately those kinks were/are being worked out.
I need to make something clear here. I am not for the federal or state government to establish religion. I am not a christian nor do I believe in the Bible as the word of god. I do believe in trying to be objective. The original intent was not to go to the lenghts that many today support because that was no what the writers of the Constitution had in mind.
That's the point of SOCAS.
Sorry but religion is too dangerous a subject to be under state jurisdiction. You can't have a free country with some of its states being run almost as theocracies. Civil rights have to be protected across the board and the only way to do that is with a separation of church and state,
In principle I agree with you. I do not agree if a state governs its people based on religious mandates. I will explain my point more in detail later.
The states are subject to the Constitution. That's not encroachment, that is the law.
Incorrect. The principle is still there. Some areas have been clearly enumerated for Congress to handle and the rest for the states. That is why we still case after case of issues going to the Supreme Court to decide because the states do feel the federal government is encroaching on their areas of responsibility.
Ah, but it is also used on many occasions by James Madison, THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Can you provide a quote from James Madison saying "Separation of Church and State". From all the reading I have done Jefferson is the only one that that expression is atributed to. I may have missed it. However, if Madison used it, I would like to know the context around it.
Thomas Jefferson was also a major contributer to the Constitution. So I'll take his and Mr. Madison's word as to what was intended in the 1st amendment over Christians with an obviously self-serving agenda and little understanding of this country's true history.
Again, Congress shall make no law. For what establishing a religion. As you say, look at the historical context of those words. No official religion.
LOL, David Barton is a known liar and a quack who wouldn't know real American history if it bit him on the ass. He's one of the lead talking heads for the theocratic Christian dominionists who aim to destroy our Constitution. If you want to see his revisionist claims totally shredded, read Chris Rodda's book "Liars For Jesus".
As far as the David Barton comment, it has not substance. It neither prove or disprove the point in question. You pretty much resorted to an ad hominen on the guy. However, I will look for the book you cite as a counter point. But, the court cases Mr. Barton cite are record. Do you want to deny that? He can say all he wants but without historical and legal precedents his words are null. His book is filled with lots of court decisions that do support the First Amendment as it is written.
Lastly, I clarify my point on the issue. I do understand why things regarding religion have gotten to the state it has reached today. I put a lot of fault on religious zealots. If a child refused to join school prayer he was shunned or ridiculed by religious people. The results, eventually more and more people stood up against that and I do not blame them the the School prayer issue in schools. Had religious people used true godly actions in being respectful of others that do not go along their views, we would not have problems today.
On the other hand, today, people are now being the inquisitors just like religious zealots and have gone to the extreme with this separation of church and state. There are now numerous cases in schools, universities, jobs sites, etc. where now religious people are shunned in one form or another by sometimes even saying a prayer on their own, or simply expressing their views in a casual group conversation, reading the Bible on their own. What is now happening, now the religious people are pushing back.
It is a back and forth issue I suppose. Also, establishment of religion does not mean a majority in a group want to pray in any setting. If the majority in the school want to have a prayer before a footbal game that is not establishing religion. The majority simply join together in praying, not to tell you you must pray or not. A long time ago I was practicing Jehovah's Witness. Whenever I attended a football game I just respectfully staying sitting down during the playing of the National Anthem. They were not trying to make me salute the Flag. On ocassion I did get some put down comments but I just ignored it. I did not go into some type of depressive state as some people tend to to go when they are in the middle of a group prayer. The same with prayer in a group. You do not want to join, don't. Just show respect to others around you just as those around you should show respect to you not joining.
The issue has more to do with respect and consideration. If people on both sides of the issue were more respectful, this issue would not be such a divisive issue but no, someone gets all bent our of shape.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL, you're just too silly, aren't you.
