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'll note your utter failure to note what our founders believed/said implying no separation of church and state was intended in the Constitution and offer this in support:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Jan. 1, 1802, Letter to the Connecticut Danbury Baptist Association
We all know of the letter the Danbury Babtists. That is not a "founding document," and his statement was metaphorical only.
Even so, we know it did not mean one must check his religious beliefs at the door of Congress, or that no public displays of any Christian symbols should be allowed on government property, in schools, or any other public place supported in part by the taxpayers.
I would remind you, that from the beginning, prayer was offered before a session of Congress. And, that prayer was not a secular (meaningless) prayer, but a prayer to God for his blessing and guidance in Jesus name, as all Christians are taught to pray.
Would the same men who wrote and signed the Constitution, turn around and violate their own words as written in the First Amendment? Did prayer cease after ratification? No, it did not. Clearly, they meant something different than you separationists believe.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Or maybe these...?
"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."
Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808.
"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object."
Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808.
None of which has Jefferson advocating the mingling of church and government. I've never said he wasn't a proponent of freedom of religion, only that I have yet to see any evidence of him believing our government and the laws that bind it should be based on any particular religion.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
We all know of the letter the Danbury Babtists. That is not a "founding document," and his statement was metaphorical only.
Even so, we know it did not mean one must check his religious beliefs at the door of Congress, or that no public displays of any Christian symbols should be allowed on government property, in schools, or any other public place supported in part by the taxpayers.
Since you choose to limit it to "any Christian symbols", are you implying the symbols of any other religion should not "be allowed on government property, in schools, or any other public place supported in part by the taxpayers" ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I would remind you, that from the beginning, prayer was offered before a session of Congress. And, that prayer was not a secular (meaningless) prayer, but a prayer to God for his blessing and guidance in Jesus name, as all Christians are taught to pray.
As I would remind you that no where was it required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Would the same men who wrote and signed the Constitution, turn around and violate their own words as written in the First Amendment? Did prayer cease after ratification? No, it did not. Clearly, they meant something different than you separationists believe.
There are any number of Jefferson quotes indicating he had no great love of Christianity so what reason is there to believe his intent was ever to favor any particular religion or welcomed the mingling of church and government?
BTW, since you as a self-professed Christian chose to wish "separationists would just go to hell" I have to express my agreement with Gandhi: I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians.
None of which has Jefferson advocating the mingling of church and government. I've never said he wasn't a proponent of freedom of religion, only that I have yet to see any evidence of him believing our government and the laws that bind it should be based on any particular religion.
Who is arguing otherwise? You misunderstand my point -- that when Jefferson refers to "separation" he dos not mean the exclusion of religion, but the necessity of government to refrain from interfering with its practice.
Of course, what has arisen in the place of organized religion, as our country has become increasingly secularized, are collective social movements -- Climate Change, unusual sexual practices and the widespread popularity of androgyny, social media and the cult of self --.all with their own restrictive theology, their insistence on a rigid orthodoxy, even their high priests and prophets.
Well, see, the problem here is that you are trying to turn this into a theological discussion, when one party to the discussion (you) isn't even a believer. It isn't going to work.
That is, in fact, my exact point. I do not want to see any governmental or legislative or judicial point settled via "theological debate". Ever.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Who is arguing otherwise? You misunderstand my point -- that when Jefferson refers to "separation" he dos not mean the exclusion of religion, but the necessity of government to refrain from interfering with its practice.
But along with "the necessity of government to refrain from interfering with its (religion) practice", which I totally agree with, I take his usage of separation to also mean the necessity of keeping religion from interfering with the workings of government.
...They (atheists) are free to practice their 'religion,' but they are not free to force it on me or anyone else...
How ironic that you write this, as someone who wants their religion forced on all Americans via the power of government. You ARE free to practice your religion--you can pray or do other rituals all you want, even when in school, or in a government meeting (as long as you're not disrupting the proceedings). You aren't restricted in the least by the fact that government is not promoting your religion in the activities and things paid for with taxes from people of your religion, and plenty of people NOT of your religion.
The separation principle, or freedom of religion in America, means that Government must not promote, advertise, push, or indicate support of any particular religion--no matter how popular it may be currently. That doesn't mean government can't support social goals such as social welfare, a minimum quality of life for everyone, prevention of harm, etc. Religious people forget that the goals of a good and decent nation have nothing to do with religion. In fact, many of the worst "users" and scam artists I have encountered have been outwardly religious, going to church every Sunday while at the same time taking advantage of the generosity and naivety of truly good people.
So what's wrong with "little" things, like the School Board mandating time for prayer at the beginning of the school day? First, it is the "camel's nose under the tent" of integrating government and religion. Next, it institutionalizes (thus promoting) the socially destructive idea that problems can be solved by begging a supernatural entity for help, rather than by constructive action.
The writer wants government to push his/her religion, based on the belief that (1) some politicians wanted it that way in the past or now; and that (2) "most" Americans belong to his/her religion (or a close facsimile). The first is irrelevant. As to the second, in a world of fluid borders and open-door immigration, do we really want the power of government used to support the most popular religion at the time? With immigration (legal and illegal) and religious mandates to have large families, what happens if/when a majority of Americans are radical Islamists who want Sharia Law imposed on everyone in America[/b]?
Do you really think you would still be free to practice your current religion then?
Who is arguing otherwise? You misunderstand my point -- that when Jefferson refers to "separation" he dos not mean the exclusion of religion, but the necessity of government to refrain from interfering with its practice.
Of course, what has arisen in the place of organized religion, as our country has become increasingly secularized, are collective social movements -- Climate Change, unusual sexual practices and the widespread popularity of androgyny, social media and the cult of self --.all with their own restrictive theology, their insistence on a rigid orthodoxy, even their high priests and prophets.
To the extent that is true, it only shows that organized religion is a human institution, and prey to the same failings as any other human institution. I saw some of the same patterns in my high school journalism club.
It is one of the sad facts of life that religion doesn't save a person from being a jerk or worse.
But along with "the necessity of government to refrain from interfering with its (religion) practice", which I totally agree with, I take his usage of separation to also mean the necessity of keeping religion from interfering with the workings of government.
Not trying to hassle you, but would you include Congressional prayers, the Senate chaplain, etc., forms of interference?
To the extent that is true, it only shows that organized religion is a human institution, and prey to the same failings as any other human institution. I saw some of the same patterns in my high school journalism club.
It is one of the sad facts of life that religion doesn't save a person from being a jerk or worse.
Twin Towers. Allahu akhbar.
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.
