• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There's no such thing as "Separation of Church and State"

iamitter said:
Incorrect.
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822)

At the very least in 1822.

I suggest you brush up on your history on this topic Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia here
Click to expand...

Actually, quite correct...

Cool story bro but where Hugo Black, which you failed to look up, got the phrase of "separation of church and state" from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 and they were concerned that the new federal government would endanger the free expression of their religion. These letters you like to quote were ignored until 1947 (in court decisions).

So again, this myth of a separation of church and state, is false...
 
fbi10 said:
It came from the supreme court case of everson v. Board of education...that was the first time that the court ruled that way or should i say the first time that the phrase "separation of church and state" was used as a final supreme court decision. Hugo black quoted Jefferson in his decision (incorrectly i should add) from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist church in the south because of some rumors, at the time, on his religious views.

They were against the federal government establishing a national religion...states, however, had more say in the matter of religion...
Click to expand...

Wayy, wayy before then.
"Jefferson wrote, "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" (1802)
Hardly unclear.
I already pointed to Madison's quote in 1822.

As for the SCOTUS, what about 1879, with Reynolds v. United States, where the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."
 
fbi10 said:
Actually, quite correct...

Cool story bro but where Hugo Black, which you failed to look up, got the phrase of "separation of church and state" from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 and they were concerned that the new federal government would endanger the free expression of their religion. These letters you like to quote were ignored until 1947 (in court decisions).

So again, this myth of a separation of church and state, is false...
Click to expand...

1879 - SCOTUS
Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks for playing.
 
iamitter said:
Wayy, wayy before then.
"Jefferson wrote, "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" (1802)
Hardly unclear.
I already pointed to Madison's quote in 1822.

As for the SCOTUS, what about 1879, with Reynolds v. United States, where the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."
Click to expand...


Again...youre quoting a letter...not actual law or SCOTUS decisions....

the case of 1879 wasn't ruled on the basis of "separation of church and state"....this was also an issue on the free exercise of religion issue...

again, in 1947, the SCOTUS ruled for the first time on the notion of "separation of church and state"...
 
fbi10 said:
Again the case wasn't ruled on the phrase of separation of church and state and this case was about the free exercise of religion...

Np, i enjoy when i win :)
Click to expand...

What do you hope to gain?
 
iamitter said:
Wayy, wayy before then.
"Jefferson wrote, "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" (1802)
Hardly unclear.
I already pointed to Madison's quote in 1822.

As for the SCOTUS, what about 1879, with Reynolds v. United States, where the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."
Click to expand...

Not till the late 40's did the liberal/progressives/socialists use the phrase to try and run religion clear out of the country. Of course they have failed to completely rid this country of religion, AS THEY HAD HOPED. We know what a nightmare religion is to the non-religious, because it constantly reminds them of their lack of personal standards and conduct; thereby convicting them at every turn.
 
American said:
Not till the late 40's did the liberal/progressives/socialists use the phrase to try and run religion clear out of the country. Of course they have failed to completely rid this country of religion, AS THEY HAD HOPED. We know what a nightmare religion is to the non-religious, because it constantly reminds them of their lack of personal standards and conduct; thereby convicting them at every turn.
Click to expand...

Lack of personal standards and conduct? What on earth are you talking about? Sure everyone does bad things sometimes, but I like to think I am a pretty good person. I am moral and my morals don't come from religion. I don't want religion totally out of the country. I just want it out of government, as it should be. There is no gain at all from their not being such separation. You're ignorant attack on people that disagree with you're conservative beliefs shows just how much you really know.

Which is very little. Jefferson and Madison both wanted religion out of government and the both said so. Madison also demonstrated this when he didn't give any money or land to churches BECAUSE OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT. The argument that church and state separation was invented by liberals in the 40's and 50's clearly doesn't hold water.
 
fbi10 said:
never said that i would gain anything...

how about yourself?? since your brought that up...what do you hope to gain?
Click to expand...

A more inclusive government that doesn't favor one religion. If you won't gain anything, why do you want church and state to be together?
 
qwertyuiop said:
A more inclusive government that doesn't favor one religion. If you won't gain anything, why do you want church and state to be together?
Click to expand...


when did i state i wanted them to be "together"? they can't be when the 1st amendment says that the federal government can't establish a national religion

The simple fact that our history shows us time and time again that there isn't this so-called separation that you people try to prove, actually just proves my point and the OP...religious institutions get all sorts of benefits from the state, there are zoning laws for RI that need to be followed, not to mention that our state history (after the constitution was ratified) have all sorts of religious preferences in line of their state...this separation you try to promote, in our history (time of Jefferson for example) never existed...
 
American said:
Not till the late 40's did the liberal/progressives/socialists use the phrase to try and run religion clear out of the country. Of course they have failed to completely rid this country of religion, AS THEY HAD HOPED. We know what a nightmare religion is to the non-religious, because it constantly reminds them of their lack of personal standards and conduct; thereby convicting them at every turn.
Click to expand...

Lack of personal standards and conduct? Are you kidding me here?
 
fbi10 said:
when did i state i wanted them to be "together"? they can't be when the 1st amendment says that the federal government can't establish a national religion

The simple fact that our history shows us time and time again that there isn't this so-called separation that you people try to prove, actually just proves my point and the OP...religious institutions get all sorts of benefits from the state, there are zoning laws for RI that need to be followed, not to mention that our state history (after the constitution was ratified) have all sorts of religious preferences in line of their state...this separation you try to promote, in our history (time of Jefferson for example) never existed...
Click to expand...

Just because you deny it doesn't make it untrue.
 
fbi10 said:
These letters you like to quote were ignored until 1947 (in court decisions).
Click to expand...

"Jefferson wrote, "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".
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.""

So it was ignored in the court until 1947... but directly quoted in the court in 1879?
 
Deuce said:
Yet the same people are against adopting Sharia Law...

Religion controlling the country is ok, as long as it's the right religion?
Click to expand...

The point is....This is a Constitutional Republic, a Republic of Self Governed People, a self governed people who ratified a compact agreement among themselves by 75% ratification to serve as the Standard that Calibrates all law in this self governed land, that compact agreement is known as the United States Constitution and it came about by Majority Consensus as do all Laws in this land, laws that reflect the morality or the lack thereof of these self governed people. What is your point? Are you suggesting THE PEOPLE do not have the authority to reflect whatever morality they choose in this Free Society?

Perhaps you would "feel" more comfortable in a Totalitarian society were THE STATE dictates policy regardless of the peoples will? (Why does the unconstitutional health care act come to mind? I know, its because 28 out of the 50 current states have sued for constitutional relief of this act, proving that this legislation did not come about by MAJORITY consensus.) What? Are you also suggesting that these SAME PEOPLE did not bring about all CIVIL RIGHTS that are now enjoyed by all minorities and females in this society, THE PEOPLE did not end slavery by evolving the Constitution by amending the Constitution to make it illegal to own people, for minorities and women to own property, to vote...to serve in government.....but now, you are suggesting these same people, BY MAJORITY are somehow racists and bigots because they refuse to turn control of their CHRISTIAN NATION over to a minority religion under the name of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?

Sure, Religion controlling our nation is acceptable, IF THE PEOPLE WILL IT, (Strange that you would propagate SHARIA LAW as being equal to liberty and freedom, name one nation on earth that uses SHARIA LAW that IS NOT a TOTALITARIAN THEOLOGICAL DICTATORSHIP...just one) as it is the Christian Philosophy that established our very system of jurisprudence as defined and parroted by majority from the Black Stone Theory of Law. As the framers of our constitution heavily referenced BLACKSTONE. But now...WE THE PEOPLE are expected to vacate that founding history in the name of an invading religion whose stated mandate in all its Holy Literature is to Consume the world under Islamic Law? Really? Just how far are you willing to go with this doctrine of APPEASEMENT? Its a most simple established legal precedent, if you wish to include Sharia Law in that STANDARD.....amend it, as is the established and mandated precedent, of course you will need a super majority 75% ratification coming from the Bosses of this nation, WE THE PEOPLE. Somehow, I believe that is why your guild wishes to circumvent the STANDARD of LAW at every chance, and still to this day find our Constitution as a Flaw in this nation, because it places Checks and Balances on acts of Totalitarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England
 
Last edited:
iamitter said:
"Jefferson wrote, "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".
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.""

So it was ignored in the court until 1947... but directly quoted in the court in 1879?
Click to expand...

Since when does WRITING EXTERNAL to the CONSTITUTION come under the scope of REVIEW when considering constitutional law? How does SCTOUS have the authority to review a LAW (like the personal letter from Jefferson..is not), that IS NOT WRITTEN? There is no authority. The Courts authority is derived for one specific reason, TO arbitrate WRITTEN law, not to OPINE NEW LAW FROM THE BENCH where none existed previous. And, according to the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution all words not found in the Constitution belong specifically to THE PEOPLE/STATES, not to SCOTUS to opine upon.

Personal Opinion, even that of Thomas Jefferson, holds no authority over the PEOPLE, the only standard that calibrates law in this land is the United States Constitution and following amendments. Please show where the words, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE are located in any LAW, to include the Constitution, Following Amendments....or from any act of Legislation that comes from the Legislative Branch of Government, the only branch of government in this nation that holds the authority to draft NEW LAW. There are no such words, and do you know why there is no such wording? Its a little thing called the 1st amendment, "...and CONGRESS shall pass no law in the establishment of religion..." why is this CLAUSE found in the Constitution, because of another little Clause called the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.

Read the Constitution in context. Who is forbidden from passing law in relation to religion, THE STATE? LOCAL GOVERNMENT? Of course not! CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW. SCOTUS does not have the power nor authority to incorporate the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE upon the PEOPLE who drafted the CLAUSE to limit BIG BROTHER, not the STATE, NOT THE COUNTIES, NOR CITIES.

Read Amendment 10. "THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES (central government, the states combined) BY THE CONSTITUTION (things written in the constitution like the 18 enumerated powers of article one), NOR PROHIBITED IT TO THE STATES (like the 1st amendment, CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW....but the courts can do what Congress is forbidden from doing, BY LIBERAL LOGIC?), ARE "RESERVED" (for who, SCOTUS? Hardly.) TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

THUS those words written by T. Jefferson in a personal communication to a Baptist Preacher....belong to who? SCOTUS to opine upon in comparing..aka, REVIEWING written law? Again, Hardly....that private communication belongs to the PEOPLE, and as of this date, there is NO LAW drafted by the PEOPLE in any STATE, or by REPRESENTATION at the Federal Level....Constructing a Wall of Separation between Church and State. If there is any such law on the books at any Government Level that has seen REPRESENTATION by THE PEOPLE...show it to us. SCOTUS overstepped its bounds in ESTABLISHING the religion of SECULAR HUMANISM as the RELIGION of the LAND.

Why have a STANDARD such as the CONSTITUTION if THE COURTS can inject PERSONAL OPINION in place of written law? Why not just say, as do most PROGRESSIVES......SCOTUS is the AUTHORITY in these United States. Indeed a group of UNELECTED, POLITICALLY APPOINTED, OPINIONATED CIVIL SERVANTS, with life time appointments and no oversight are now THE LAW OF THE LAND in this supposedly SELF GOVERNING, CONSTITUTIONAL FREE REPUBLIC? Really? Sounds kind'a totalitarian to me....when a BRANCH of the GOVERNMENT can DICTATE the self professed limits of its power, and CHANGE the CONSTITUTION by personal opinion when the mood suits them.
 
Last edited:
You're just rambling.
I was responding to this comment:"These letters you like to quote were ignored until 1947 (in court decisions).", proving that, indeed, the letters were not ignored until 1947.
 
iamitter said:
You're just rambling.
I was responding to this comment:"These letters you like to quote were ignored until 1947 (in court decisions).", proving that, indeed, the letters were not ignored until 1947.
Click to expand...

Rambling? Indeed, and you still cannot address the point. Since when does personal opinion, regardless of where it originates qualify as REVIEWED LAW? Just how does that work, how can an UNWRITTEN LAW be subject to arbitration? SCOTUS has no authority to redefine the 1st amendment based upon the personal opinion of anyone, regardless of when that OPINION was subject to review. And of this date there is NO LAW at any level, Constitutional or otherwise that suggests there is a Separation of Church and State, as only Congress...."SHALL PASS NO LAW IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION." Nowhere is there a Law that is representative of the peoples will that separates Church and State.

The TRUTH? Roosevelt packed the Supreme Court with Socialists and Humanists for one purpose, to legalize the Unconstitutional NEW (Communist) DEAL, that was suggested and propagandized as a SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS. And where does history show us this IDEA of a NEW DEAL came from? It was parroted verbatim from the USSR Constitution (Articles 41-46). If the NEW DEAL was compliant with the Constitution, why promote it as a quest for a Second Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights are all, AMENDMENTS to the United States Constitution. If an amendment is suggested, how can it be Constitutionally Compliant? It cannot. But as of this date, no Amendment has ever been ratified that grants Big Brother the authority to implement the NEW DEAL....all the legislation came from the authority of SCOTUS only, after Roosevelt padded the court. The "OPINION" that constructed a WALL OF SEPARATION came as a direct result of a ROOSEVELT COURT, in 1947 Everison V. Board of Education established a precedent where none had existed in the previous two hundred years of US HISTORY, and it was all falsely based upon a PERSONAL OPINION, not ARBITRATED, REVIEWED LAW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
 
Last edited:
iamitter said:
"Jefferson wrote, "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".
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.""

So it was ignored in the court until 1947... but directly quoted in the court in 1879?
Click to expand...



again, was the metaphor "separation of church and state" used as a final decision by the majority on the supreme court...???? No, point being...that metaphor wasn't used until 1947 (out of context may i add) by an ex klansman..so again, yes that wasnt used in a court decision and was ignored until 1947.
 
fbi10 said:
There is a difference between a so called "denial" and actual facts...sorry buddy but history just proves that i am correct.

Why are you denying such a thing?
Click to expand...

You constantly say "I HAVE FACTS!" yet provide none.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Let's examine the first amendment shall we?



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Hmm...that sounds to me like what it says. No law in this country can be made in regards to religious establishments. Which includes any particular religion being set up or how that religion is set up. In otherwords the federal government cannot tell someone what they must or must not have inside of their religion.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Again, pretty straight forward. No one can force another, through legislation, to act contrary to how they wish to exercise thier religion. Which means that no one can promote or force upon ones religion upon another through legislation. This includes, but is not limited to, how one behaves in as dictated by religions, ones belief system.

So while the words "seperation of state and church" is not in the constitution exactly, it is most assuredly there in spirit.
Click to expand...

Liberals treat this "wall" as literal, like one they can set up inside schools to stop seniors from bowing their heads during a graduation ceremony, or at any other time. They don't want to see religion, so they throw out this "wall" as a barrier against religion.
 
American said:
Liberals treat this "wall" as literal, like one they can set up inside schools to stop seniors from bowing their heads during a graduation ceremony, or at any other time. They don't want to see religion, so they throw out this "wall" as a barrier against religion.
Click to expand...

Again, there is nothing to keep seniors, or anyone else for that matter, from bowing their heads during a graduation ceremony, a pep rally, a classroom quiz, or any other time. Separation of church and state keeps us from having to submit to a mandatory prayer uttered by someone who may or may not share our religious beliefs. It is a matter of individual liberty. If "liberals" are against mandatory prayer, does that mean conservatives are against individual liberty?
 
American said:
Liberals treat this "wall" as literal, like one they can set up inside schools to stop seniors from bowing their heads during a graduation ceremony, or at any other time. They don't want to see religion, so they throw out this "wall" as a barrier against religion.
Click to expand...

You repeatedly say "You can't pray in public schools." You can. As Ditto said, it is only mandatory prayer that is banned.
 
qwertyuiop said:
You repeatedly say "You can't pray in public schools." You can. As Ditto said, it is only mandatory prayer that is banned.
Click to expand...

Go look on the Web and you'll find the stories where it was stopped. It was students wanting to lead a prayer, not school officials. To liberals, Jesus is a boogieman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom