Seperation of Church and State

[rushmc 23]

I have from time to time, commented on how the seperation clause of the Constitution has been bastardized. And it has

Because in the end, the intent was that the state or the gov would make no law concerning religion, unless said religion did ill of his neighbor.

Please consider the attachment. One can easily conclude that the state making no law in regards to religion did NOT mean that religion had or has no place in the public square.

Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65

and a look at these letters meaning

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Channman 2]

Quote

I have from time to time, commented on how the seperation clause of the Constitution has been bastardized. And it has

Because in the end, the intent was that the state or the gov would make no law concerning religion, unless said religion did ill of his neighbor.

Please consider the attachment. One can easily conclude that the state making no law in regards to religion did NOT mean that religion had or has no place in the public square.

Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65

and a look at these letters meaning

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

> religion did NOT mean that religion had or has no place in the public square.

I would agree, and I would encourage its continued use within the public square, well except that Pagan crap. I only used the term Pagan Crap because its inflammatory.

It's been sometime that I've read up on this matter, must ponder it more.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

One can easily conclude that the state making no law in regards to religion did NOT mean that religion had or has no place in the public square.

Meaning?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[yourmomma 0]

In the writings you cited it is extremely clear that the baptist were saying no religion in government, right? Jefferson said, yeah that's right. You can "interpret" it any way you like, as per the governments inability to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Regardless of your or the Baptists interpretation Jefferson was very clear the wall between religion and government nevertheless stands. Or as Fezzik would say "I
don't think it means what you think it means.

[tkhayes 348]

we don't need your interpretation of the definitions or what it means. The Supreme Court has already ruled on it many times in many cases.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Or as Fezzik would say "I
don't think it means what you think it means.

You're absolutely right - It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BIGUN 1,321]

Here's a good rainy day reading site...

http://www.oyez.org/

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[sfzombie 3]

just because the sc ruled on it doesn't mean anything. they change from time to time and so do the rulings. they need to get back to the original intent. it was originally meant to prevent a state sponsored religion, much like the c of e that the colonists wanted to get away from. it never had any implications like are being pushed today. if you doubt that, you need to read up on history a bit.

http://kitswv.com

[tkhayes 348]

You're right - the supreme court doesn't 'mean anything'

Name a Supreme court decision that 'changes from time to time'

Perhaps you mean THESE decisions?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html, many of which are decades old and still standing.

When government prays in my City Council chambers before a meeting, they ARE state-sponsoring a religion. When they broadcast prayers over school audiences, they ARE state-sponsoring a religion.

Not sure what you mena by 'intent'. Christianity still has a death grip ont he entire country, with an overwhelming majority of support, but government still needs to remain neutral in all aspects of it. YOUR religion is not under any threat, nor has it ever been.

But government IS under a threat of becoming a theocracy.

[sfzombie 3]

i am pretty sure that "in god we trust" was put on money sometime after ww2, and that "under god" was inserted into the pledge in the 50's, i may be wrong on the dates, i'm not going to look it up, i don't care enough to know the exact dates. i do know that government will not turn into a theocracy without a constitutional amendment, however. and there have been reversals of sc decisions, but once again, i don't care enough about it to look them up. i remember a couple i have learned about in the past. the internet is full of information, not all of it correct. if you can find information providing that all sc decisions have never been reversed, that would be news to me. but i am not a lawyer, and it is possible that i was misinformed. have a great weekend!

http://kitswv.com

[rushmc 23]

But government IS under a threat of becoming a theocracy.

Tin hat time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But government IS under a threat of becoming a theocracy.

Tin hat time



don't laugh too fast - There's the "green" religion. The Social Agenda Religion, etc etc etc. Just as fanatical, and trendy in hollywood.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tkhayes 348]

no more tin hat that Obama being a socialist, or a commie, or a Nazi, or heading towards oblivion, or whatever the other side comes up with.

If it is not too much to ask, I would appreciate religion remain neutral within government, given that government needs to represent everyone.

If the right would concede that, I might even be willing to concede voter ID requirements.

[yourmomma 0]

I believe it means exactly what Jefferson wrote. There is a wall that keeps you from having to live buy the rules of Rome, England, pick a church. That is what he said. Others can interpret, like some do the bible. I take peoples writing at face value. I believe the bible means what it says, I believe Jefferson means what he said. And mickey boy I'm sure you interpret what either of them ment.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I believe it means exactly what Jefferson wrote. There is a wall that keeps you from having to live buy the rules of Rome, England, pick a church. That is what he said. Others can interpret, like some do the bible. I take peoples writing at face value. I believe the bible means what it says, I believe Jefferson means what he said. And mickey boy I'm sure you interpret what either of them ment.

So now you've gone from 'no religion in government' to the actual meaning, that there would be no national government - good for you, there's (slim) hope for you yet.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I believe the bible means what it says,

Well, that's easy, because in different parts of the bible it says diametrically opposite things

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreece 190]

All I care about is that I have a right to speak in the public square...

I'm big on separation...the last thing we need is the government in our faith...a lil bit of leven levens the whole bunch and all that jazz...

Ya, I'm practically an anarchist...nothing wrong with that as long as you are responsible enough to deal with such a level of freedom.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If it is not too much to ask, I would appreciate religion remain neutral within government, given that government needs to represent everyone.

If the right would concede that, I might even be willing to concede voter ID requirements.

OK, I agree religion should not be allowed to influence politics. AND that politics should not influence religion.

Now about that voter ID issue?

[tkhayes 348]

already being discussed in another thread

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

already being discussed in another thread

It was a joke.... You claimed, "If it is not too much to ask, I would appreciate religion remain neutral within government, given that government needs to represent everyone.

If the right would concede that, I might even be willing to concede voter ID requirements."

And you also always try to blanket label me as a "righty".....

So I called your 'bluff' to highlight that I am not what you think I am, and to poke fun at you on another issue.