Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[Gordy327]

The two are inexorably linked.

No, They are not. And should not be.

 

[Napoleon]

No, They are not. And should not be.

If you believe that then the secularists and especially atheists will have to step up to fill the void first. Otherwise, people die in the gutter with only their lip service to comfort them.

 

[jmotivator]

The Free Exercise clause would obviously prohibit banning religious belief.

Indeed, and that is also not the point. What is in question is how extensive the free exercise clauses is, and what the establishment clause actually limits.

The separation of church and state only applies to the actions of the government to make it a no-religion zone.

This is false. It doesn't bar religiosity in government it prevents the government from establishing a state religion, like The Church of England... or the Church of the United States.

Religious belief outside of that is protected. I do not understand why this is so difficult for you to understand

Wrong, religious belief inside and outside is protected. The Free expression of religion is what it says on the tin. the only limitation is on the Government and that limitation is specifically the proscription from establishing a state religion. Again, just as it says on the tin.

That is incorrect.

LOL. It is correct, and I have already offered you the statements from Jefferson that said exactly that.

 

[Gordy327]

If you believe that then the secularists and especially atheists will have to step up to fill the void first. Otherwise, people die in the gutter with only their lip service to comfort them.

Nothing is stopping anyone from organizing a charity. Religious institutions are free to do so independent of the government.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Problem is secular Democrats are marching towards any Christian public religious.expression as forcing religious views on others.

If the Republicans stop trying to make laws that reflect their religious beliefs, stop trying to force religion into schools, and stop finding reasons to allow religious zealots/charlatans to discriminate against people based on THEIR BELIEFS, this will stop happening.

Your religion does not give you the right to deny marriage licenses to homosexuals, nor does it give you the right to not provide services that run contrary to your beliefs. Pharmacists have no right to refuse to fill prescriptions because their religious beliefs do not agree with the purpose of the medication.

Keep your religion to yourself. It's okay for you to have a religion, it's okay for you to believe, it is not okay for you to force it on others.

Here is the text of the Establishment Clause.

Amendment I​

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where in the text is the specification for separation of church and state? Nowhere.

If your going to cite SCOTUS declarations creating the so-called wall of separation kindly provide the Constitutional text enabling the SCOTUS to amend the Constitution.

The United States is supposed to be a secular state. That is what the founders wanted.

 

[Napoleon]

Nothing is stopping anyone from organizing a charity. Religious institutions are free to do so independent of the government.

Therefore your position is that charitable organizations must be independent of the government because secularists and atheists are the living embodiment of Ebenezer Scrooge.

 

[Gordy327]

Therefore your position is that charitable organizations must be independent of the government because secularists and atheists are the living embodiment of Ebenezer Scrooge.

How droll.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Indeed, and that is also not the point. What is in question is how extensive the free exercise clauses is, and what the establishment clause actually limits.



This is false. It doesn't bar religiosity in government it prevents the government from establishing a state religion, like The Church of England... or the Church of the United States.



Wrong, religious belief inside and outside is protected. The Free expression of religion is what it says on the tin. the only limitation is on the Government and that limitation is specifically the proscription from establishing a state religion. Again, just as it says on the tin.

This means that the religious zealots cannot legislate by their religion. In doing so, they create a de facto state religion and violate the 1st Amendment.

Keep your religion out of my government and it will all work out.

LOL. It is correct, and I have already offered you the statements from Jefferson that said exactly that.

I have posted statements many times that show the founding fathers intended this country to be secular.

 

[jmotivator]

This means that the religious zealots cannot legislate by their religion. In doing so, they create a de facto state religion and violate the 1st Amendment.

No it doesn't. It means that the religious zealots can't establish a United States Church of Religious Zealotry.

The will of the people and the legislators isn't so limited on a policy by policy basis except insofar as the legislation infringes on the free expression of others.

Keep your religion out of my government and it will all work out.

Nope. Keep your militant atheism out of my government. Your position is the actual state limitation on the free expression of religion.

I have posted statements many times that show the founding fathers intended this country to be secular.

They intended the country to be freely religious and absent a state run religion. That is not what you and the anti-religion zealots propose. What you propose would be anathema to the founders.

 

[trixare4kids]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

As long as the majority of the Court upholds the separation between church and state fundamentals, I've no problems with the wording in the motto, "In God we trust".

'In God We Trust': Inside The Controversial History Of America's Official Motto

"In God we trust" has been the national motto of the United States since 1956.

allthatsinteresting.com

 

[AZRWinger]

The definition of those ideas are in the writings of Jefferson and Madison who wrote the First Amendment. Don't try to play with literalist textural games with me.

So, the true meaning of the Constitution is not what's written in the Constitution, it's in selected excepts of the authors writings. That would make the ratification process meaningless. Absurd.

Now who is playing games? You.

 

[Lisa]

So, the true meaning of the Constitution is not what's written in the Constitution, it's in selected excepts of the authors writings. That would make the ratification process meaningless. Absurd.

Now who is playing games? You.

The Bill of Rights was not ratified as part of the US Constitution.

As part of the US Constitution, you might want to read the Federalist papers. The constitutions is a series of ideas and rules for how the government is to be organized because if it were verbatim it would be 20x longer and not open to juridical ruling to allow it to change with time as the country and society matured and expanded.

 

[AZRWinger]

If the Republicans stop trying to make laws that reflect their religious beliefs, stop trying to force religion into schools, and stop finding reasons to allow religious zealots/charlatans to discriminate against people based on THEIR BELIEFS, this will stop happening.

Thanks for providing another example of raging Leftist intolerance. It's exactly the thing the first amendment prohibits in government.

Your religion does not give you the right to deny marriage licenses to homosexuals, nor does it give you the right to not provide services that run contrary to your beliefs. Pharmacists have no right to refuse to fill prescriptions because their religious beliefs do not agree with the purpose of the medication.

Keep your religion to yourself. It's okay for you to have a religion, it's okay for you to believe, it is not okay for you to force it on others.

There you go again denying the plain writing of the Constitution. Keep your religion to yourself directly contradicts the fee exercise of religion guarantee.

The United States is supposed to be a secular state. That is what the founders wanted.

Kindly cite the text in the Constitution supporting the notion the Founders wanted a secular state. You have already been shown the guarantee of free exercise of religion.

 

[AZRWinger]

The Bill of Rights was not ratified as part of the US Constitution.

As part of the US Constitution, you might want to read the Federalist papers. The constitutions is a series of ideas and rules for how the government is to be organized because if it were verbatim it would be 20x longer and not open to juridical ruling to allow it to change with time as the country and society matured and expanded.

"On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent copies of the 12 amendments adopted by Congress to the states. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified 10 of these, now known as the “Bill of Rights.”

The Bill of Rights: How Did it Happen?

Writing the Bill of Rights The amendments James Madison proposed were designed to win support in both houses of Congress and the states. He focused on rights-related amendments, ignoring suggestions that would have structurally changed the government. Opposition to the Constitution Many...

www.archives.gov

The Federalist papers were written in support of ratifying the Constitution not as a modification to it.

 

[renee]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

I agree with what you are saying, but public schools do not display crosses. They are not allowed to.

 

[renee]

Actually, referencing a Judaeo-Christian-Muslim God is establishing a religion if you are requiring everyone to participate. Such as the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. By making that a government mandate they have established a government religion. The phrase "In God We Trust," however, is not establishing a government religion since it is not mandated by government that everyone must recite that phrase. The phrase "In God We Trust" should not exist in the first place, but it is better than the mandated "under God" in the Pledge which is blatantly unconstitutional.

I was a little kid when they added under God, and it was to separate us from communism

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Thanks for providing another example of raging Leftist intolerance. It's exactly the thing the first amendment prohibits in government.

It's not intolerance. Your religion does not give you the right to discriminate. You are still free to exercise your beliefs. You will not force them on others.

There you go again denying the plain writing of the Constitution. Keep your religion to yourself directly contradicts the fee exercise of religion guarantee.

No, it doesn't. Nobody is saying you cannot believe what you want. We are saying your religion shouldn't be forced on others and has no business in government.

Kindly cite the text in the Constitution supporting the notion the Founders wanted a secular state. You have already been shown the guarantee of free exercise of religion.

The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document1. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ1. America was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles2. The Treaty of Tripoli, placed in 1796 by founding father and first vice-president John Adams, states that “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”3.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

No it doesn't. It means that the religious zealots can't establish a United States Church of Religious Zealotry.

Wrong.

There can be no state religion. That means religion cannot forced on people through rule of law.

The will of the people and the legislators isn't so limited on a policy by policy basis except insofar as the legislation infringes on the free expression of others.

Religion has no place in government. Your religion is not the law.

Nope. Keep your militant atheism out of my government. Your position is the actual state limitation on the free expression of religion.

I am not an atheist. I position is that the right cannot legislate by their religious beliefs. There can be no state religion and there cannot be a de facto state religion caused by Christian zealotry.

They intended the country to be freely religious and absent a state run religion. That is not what you and the anti-religion zealots propose. What you propose would be anathema to the founders.

What the right is doing is creating a de facto state religion. I suggest you go look up the definition of the word "zealot".

What I am proposing is exactly what the founders wanted. People to be able to live freely WITHOUT a state religion and without a de facto state religion being forced on people because the right is unable to understand their religion is not the law.

 

[Glitch]

I was a little kid when they added under God, and it was to separate us from communism

They didn't do a very good job then. Mandating a loyalty pledge and deliberately violating the rights of its citizens sounds exactly like something communists would do.

 

[Glitch]

Wrong.

There can be no state religion. That means religion cannot forced on people through rule of law.

Religion has no place in government. Your religion is not the law.



I am not an atheist. I position is that the right cannot legislate by their religious beliefs. There can be no state religion and there cannot be a de facto state religion caused by Christian zealotry.



What the right is doing is creating a de facto state religion. I suggest you go look up the definition of the word "zealot".

What I am proposing is exactly what the founders wanted. People to be able to live freely WITHOUT a state religion and without a de facto state religion being forced on people because the right is unable to understand their religion is not the law.

You are half right. The Bill of Rights exist as a prohibition to government, not to individuals. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion. However, the First Amendment does not prohibit the religious from entering government. There have been Catholic Priests, and numerous Reverends, Ministers, and other clergy from protestant religions, as well as a few Rabbis who have served in Congress.

The First Amendment prohibitions are very much one sided. Government is prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion, but the religious are not prohibited from interfering with the government.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

You are half right. The Bill of Rights exist as a prohibition to government, not to individuals. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion. However, the First Amendment does not prohibit the religious from entering government. There have been Catholic Priests, and numerous Reverends, Ministers, and other clergy from protestant religions, as well as a few Rabbis who have served in Congress.

The First Amendment prohibitions are very much one sided. Government is prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion, but the religious are not prohibited from interfering with the government.

Many people say this, but it isn't entirely accurate.

There can be no state religion this in the 1st Amendment. May red states have taken Christianity and made it a de facto state religion. This is not acceptable.

I am not saying religious people cannot be in the law, what I am saying is that their religion is NOT the law and cannot be the law.

What is happening in Florida, Texas, South Dakota, and a few others is that their leadership has turned those states into de facto Christian theocracies. This is a 1st Amendment violation and needs to be reversed.

 

[Gordy327]

You are half right. The Bill of Rights exist as a prohibition to government, not to individuals. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion. However, the First Amendment does not prohibit the religious from entering government. There have been Catholic Priests, and numerous Reverends, Ministers, and other clergy from protestant religions, as well as a few Rabbis who have served in Congress.

The First Amendment prohibitions are very much one sided. Government is prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion, but the religious are not prohibited from interfering with the government.

That is incorrect. Separation works both ways. Otherwise, there is no Separation between governments and religion.

 

[AZRWinger]

Many people say this, but it isn't entirely accurate.

There can be no state religion this in the 1st Amendment. May red states have taken Christianity and made it a de facto state religion. This is not acceptable.

I am not saying religious people cannot be in the law, what I am saying is that their religion is NOT the law and cannot be the law.

What is happening in Florida, Texas, South Dakota, and a few others is that their leadership has turned those states into de facto Christian theocracies. This is a 1st Amendment violation and needs to be reversed.

Citing the establishment clause of the 1st amendment while ignoring the guarantees of free exercise and free speech isn't accurate. It leads to false claims of Christianity being a de facto state religion. The insistence on purging Christianity from government not only establishes atheism as the State religion it directly violates the Article 6 prohibition of a religious test for office.

 

[Gordy327]

Citing the establishment clause of the 1st amendment while ignoring the guarantees of free exercise and free speech isn't accurate. It leads to false claims of Christianity being a de facto state religion. The insistence on purging Christianity from government not only establishes atheism as the State religion it directly violates the Article 6 prohibition of a religious test for office.

Removing or restricting religion from the government, as it should be, is not establishing atheism. It's maintaining a secular government. As it should be.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

And better enforcement of laws already on the books now.