Help me out here.

[AEB]

This
thread seems to be a very popular one. I can by no means go and read it all. But my point of this topic is to ask where the constitution grants seperation of church and state. I am asking seriously since people like to say that a lot. I may be missing something

 

[TheBDB]

If you are looking for the phrase "seperation of church and state" you aren't going to find it. That is a phrase that describes how it has been interpreted.

 

[AEB]

i am obviously not looking for suc a phrase. i said wher in the constitution it grants the seperation. i am just looking for reasons why people always say that besides liking what it means

 

[TheBDB]

Amendment I

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.

 

[AEB]

that just says congress cant pass laws that respect a certain religion, or prohibits free exersice of religion. Which hasn't happened. This amendment dos not grant seperation of church and state. people are still free to practice any religion and congress hasnt passed laws saying "this religion is the best" in short that amendment like i said does not grant seperation. see my confusion

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Amendment I

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.

Look up the word "establishment" and you'll have your answer.

 

[TheBDB]

Seperation of chuch and state follows from non-establishment. I guess it depends on your definition of words. I learned about this from a class on Constitutional law and the Supreme Court. I suggest you read some of the justices opinions because they explain it better than me.

 

[AEB]

i looked up establishment and it means what it means an establishment. repecting proves more interesting "To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem" . BUt TheBDB i should have thought of readig thier opinions first thats a good idea, know any rescources.

Im thinking i judge moore. he put the commandments in the court house and that was no violation of teh first amendment if anything it was free speech. But people were blasting speration left and right and in that case i dont see how congress is involved

 

[SViscusi]

The phrase Seperation of Church and state comes from Jeffersons letter to the Danbury baptists. That along with other writings are used quite frequently the the courts to try and decipher the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

 

[maluckey]

So long as the U.S. government does nt accept one religion over the other, nor within common sense, abridge the right of it's citizens to speak freely and assemble lawfully, then it is not violating the First Amendment.

The govenrment does not have to accept all speech as free, nor all assemblies as lawful. It does not have to accept any particular religion as lawful or just. Not all religious or speech rights are guaranteed, or recognized by the courts. Here is where common sense and imagination ply out. The Government can cross the line, if it establishes preference through legislative or regulatory actions that help or hurt a specific recognized religion. Even then, it must be weighed versus the community standards and morality of it's citizens.

Having an opinion does not violate any part of the Consititution. Therefore if a Judge, or government official is Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or whatever, he may hold his beliefs, so long as he rulings are not compromised because of them.

 

[Doboji]

You have to do a little reading into where the first ammendment came from... the virginia statute of relgious freedom. The idea behind it being... no man shall be forced to put his money and efforts behind any particular religion. To me this implies a seperation of Church and State simply because the State is funded by the citzens, so for the State to support the Church, is to violate the very principles of the 1st ammendment.

So seperation of Church and state is an implicit concept within the structure of the 1st ammendment. If you have prayer in public schools, then you have forced me to pay for a particular religious concept.

Help?

-Max

 

[AEB]

but then you are forcing people who want their money to go for that religion not to, ths denying their freedom of religion.
As for the letters, i think thats crap lots of other founding fathers ie Franklin said this country is one of a christian God. The constitution represents a middle ground what ALL the founding fathers could agree on. so what jefferson or anyone else wrote is irrelavent. i mean we could argure the opposite , lets say some founding father wrote a letter saying free speech applies only to petitiong the government would everyone agree? no but if one of the fathers wrote it it must be true!

 

[rjain]

How are you forcing those people from not giving their own time and money to their religious beliefs?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Having an opinion does not violate any part of the Consititution. Therefore if a Judge, or government official is Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or whatever, he may hold his beliefs, so long as he rulings are not compromised because of them.

And as long as he does not intimidate others into believing what he believes and as long as he doesn't cause others to be forced (via taxation) into supporting any specific religious beliefs.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: maluckey

Having an opinion does not violate any part of the Consititution. Therefore if a Judge, or government official is Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or whatever, he may hold his beliefs, so long as he rulings are not compromised because of them.

And as long as he does not intimidate others into believing what he believes and as long as he doesn't cause others to be forced (via taxation) into supporting any specific religious beliefs.

Sure he can... as long as he is not representing the people while he does so.

 

[Doboji]

but then you are forcing people who want their money to go for that religion not to, ths denying their freedom of religion.
As for the letters, i think thats crap lots of other founding fathers ie Franklin said this country is one of a christian God. The constitution represents a middle ground what ALL the founding fathers could agree on. so what jefferson or anyone else wrote is irrelavent. i mean we could argure the opposite , lets say some founding father wrote a letter saying free speech applies only to petitiong the government would everyone agree? no but if one of the fathers wrote it it must be true!

Incorrect, the first amendment was written specifically in context to Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious freedom.... Thus it is his writtings that are relevant.

Furthermore... c'mmon man... think in context of the time period... one of the major gripes leading to the revolution was the colonials forced to support the anglican church. When you take the time to really read the amendment from this perspective it makes perfect sense.... everyone can believe PUBLICLY anything they want, but they cannot use their office to promote any one religion over another. Thus things like prayer in schools, uses public funds to promote religion to the children in the school. Thus clearly breaking the first amendment. If a bunch of kids decided to pray before class... then they would have a right to... also under the first amendment. It's all quite clear when you really think about it.

-Max

 

[AEB]

but kids cant pray before class, and people are using seperation of church in state to ban prayer in school.
you cant say the first amendment was writtin specifically in context to that letter.
people are granted religious freedom under the first amendment just not freedom from religion.
its clear language back to the judge moore case what did he do wrong in light of the first amendment.
schools give time to many other religions and "unproven" topics aka evolution. I mean i learned about buddists and muslims in school but never christians except the bad stuff they did if its anything christian its wrong to support but all else goes.
the first amendment is clear CONGRESS shall make no law RESPECTING . the founding fathers were pretty clear about which branch could do what. Howver like i said i will look for the ruling about seperation of church and state to see where the justices are coming from. this whole thing confuses me

 

[TheBDB]

Kids can pray in school during class, as long as they don't disrupt the class to do it. The teacher cannot be involved because that is interpreted as a state endorsement of a particular religion.

Edit: When you mentioned "unproven evolution", it made me realize why you are confused.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Kids can pray in school during class, as long as they don't disrupt the class to do it. The teacher cannot be involved because that is interpreted as a state endorsement of a particular religion.

Edit: When you mentioned "unproven evolution", it made me realize why you are confused.

ah, but nowhere does is it said that the govt cannot endorse a particular religion, it says that the govt is not allowed to make any religion the official religion of the state. they are not allowed by law to tell you that you are to become a member of some such religion or you will be prosecuted by law.

and the idea of speration of church and state was an idea presented in the federalist papers, i believe

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: maluckey

Having an opinion does not violate any part of the Consititution. Therefore if a Judge, or government official is Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or whatever, he may hold his beliefs, so long as he rulings are not compromised because of them.

And as long as he does not intimidate others into believing what he believes and as long as he doesn't cause others to be forced (via taxation) into supporting any specific religious beliefs.

since we both agreed that atheism is a religious viewpoint, do you include the atheistic religious view in that comment?

in our earlier conversation you did not seem to. you justified the minority oppressing the majority as a better substitute for what you call the majority oppressing the minority.

if society was truly "tolerant" would it even matter? no it would not.

differing views could be expressed(at their own expense) with no one going on a crying jags to congress about how offended they are at seeing monuments of other views, no matter what view or position in the argument either party held.

in all the discussions no one has ever refuted the legal point i raised, which is:

the government is bound by it's own laws, for example: laws decreeing that no one can be discriminated against because of race, nationality..etc. apply TO the government as well as priviate companies..there can be no discrimination WITHIN the government. in fact the founding fathers including jefferson view the constitution as a limitation on the government, not the people.

the same holds true to the law stipulating congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. so there can be no favoritism to one view(including atheism), likewise there can be no law forbidding the free exercise WITHIN the government.

the ONLY way for the law to be followed WITHIN the governmental entity is for as the law simply says very literally. especially the last part some here are loathe to quote. "the free exercise therof" WITHIN the government.

so using an incorrect interpretation of the law to forbid ANY religion the freedom of exercise within the government itself is in fact breaking the law. it is taking a federally mandated atheistic(the "A" in front of "theistic" meaning "non") stance, which is respecting an established relisious view. this is evidenced by the main ones wanting the government to do so being mainly atheists themselves who because of thier religious view are offended at any religious public display and are using an abuse of the law in order to get rid of them.

this holds even more true to the word "God" in the pledge. a muslim is not offended at that word, niether are jews, christians, hindus, etc...etc. to many "new agers" and pantheists it would be a partial reference to themselves about the only people that are truly offended at the word "God" are some atheists, who in thier intolerance expect the government and everyone else to pander to thier view to the detriment of most other views...illegally.

 

[TheBDB]

I'm not sure how you can call atheism a religous viewpoint. How is lack of religion a religion? At very least you have to say it is significantly different from all other theisms.

 

[DealMonkey]

Somebody must be truly ignorant to think that atheism is a religion. It's like saying the empty glass is really full of water.

 

[dmcowen674]

Wow, a Forum full of people and only ShadowHawk gets it. Kudos Shadow. How sad for the rest.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: maluckey

Having an opinion does not violate any part of the Consititution. Therefore if a Judge, or government official is Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or whatever, he may hold his beliefs, so long as he rulings are not compromised because of them.

And as long as he does not intimidate others into believing what he believes and as long as he doesn't cause others to be forced (via taxation) into supporting any specific religious beliefs.

since we both agreed that atheism is a religious viewpoint, do you include the atheistic religious view in that comment?

in our earlier conversation you did not seem to. you justified the minority oppressing the majority as a better substitute for what you call the majority oppressing the minority.

if society was truly "tolerant" would it even matter? no it would not.

differing views could be expressed(at their own expense) with no one going on a crying jags to congress about how offended they are at seeing monuments of other views, no matter what view or position in the argument either party held.

in all the discussions no one has ever refuted the legal point i raised, which is:

the government is bound by it's own laws, for example: laws decreeing that no one can be discriminated against because of race, nationality..etc. apply TO the government as well as priviate companies..there can be no discrimination WITHIN the government. in fact the founding fathers including jefferson view the constitution as a limitation on the government, not the people.

the same holds true to the law stipulating congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. so there can be no favoritism to one view(including atheism), likewise there can be no law forbidding the free exercise WITHIN the government.

the ONLY way for the law to be followed WITHIN the governmental entity is for as the law simply says very literally. especially the last part some here are loathe to quote. "the free exercise therof" WITHIN the government.

so using an incorrect interpretation of the law to forbid ANY religion the freedom of exercise within the government itself is in fact breaking the law. it is taking a federally mandated atheistic(the "A" in front of "theistic" meaning "non") stance, which is respecting an established relisious view. this is evidenced by the main ones wanting the government to do so being mainly atheists themselves who because of thier religious view are offended at any religious public display and are using an abuse of the law in order to get rid of them.

this holds even more true to the word "God" in the pledge. a muslim is not offended at that word, niether are jews, christians, hindus, etc...etc. to many "new agers" and pantheists it would be a partial reference to themselves about the only people that are truly offended at the word "God" are some atheists, who in thier intolerance expect the government and everyone else to pander to thier view to the detriment of most other views...illegally.

One of the problems with your argument is that you insist that Atheism is a Religion or takes a Religous veiwpoint of Religion. That's incorrect, Atheism takes a veiw at Religion from a non Religious standpoint. Atheism is not a form of religion in any sense of the matter though some hysterical Theists like to claim that it is just to lower Athiesm down to their levels.

 

[Doboji]

There is no question that often times the seperation of chruch and state zealots step over the line. This business of trying to block kids from praying on their own is disgraceful, and a violation of the first amendment. The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.

But as for the evolution vs creation bullcrap.... Evolution is a scientific theory, the same as the theory of relativity, or any other theories being taught in school. Whether atheists believe it or not... it is not the basis for their "religion". Myself as a Jew who practices, I see evolution as a viable theory, and not necessarily incompatible with the Torah(you call it the old testament). And it is taught as just that... a theory. As a product of the public school system *crack jokes here*, I was taught the evolution theory, and it was always presented as a theory, and furthermore one that is under intense research. Creation on the other hand is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief, and does not need scientific evidence in order to be supported.

Furthermore, in school I did learn about Christianity, I even studied the bible as literature, and understood it from an objective position. It is however impossible to study every religious belief there is in school... and what is important is the objectivity in the teaching process not necessarily the number of religions taught.

The first amendment is so clear... You can't make laws or allow the government to promote religion, because it uses public funding to do so. And you can't make laws or allow the government that bars people from practicing their religion wherever and whenever they want. It's a tough balancing act.

-Max