• 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!

"Separation of Church and State"

jet57 said:
Nope: the idea was to separate the church from government AND legislation.
Click to expand...

no the idea was to promote religion and religious values by not letting evil govt interfere with your free exercise
 
Soopairik said:
It was so people could practice religion freely.
Click to expand...

of course if they didn't the liberal would not be so afraid to tell us what he means.
 
James972 said:
no the idea was to promote religion and religious values by not letting evil govt interfere with your free exercise
Click to expand...



I'm just going to let that example of colossal ignorance stand there.
 
Josie said:
What are you saying "uh no" to exactly?
Click to expand...

The "capital building" was not registered as a religious place of worship... There was a chapel built into it in 1955 that was a place for members and staff to go and practice their religion. Now of course, there's going to have to be Mosque included...
 
jet57 said:
I'm just going to let that example of colossal ignorance stand there.
Click to expand...

of course if it was ignorance the liberal would not be so afraid to say why it is. Its important to have a reason. Sorry
 
James972 said:
of course if it was ignorance the liberal would not be so afraid to say why it is. Its important to have a reason. Sorry
Click to expand...

You agree that your comment was ignorant!

that's a start. Now - read some books before you comment any further.
 
jet57 said:
The "capital building" was not registered as a religious place of worship... There was a chapel built into it in 1955 that was a place for members and staff to go and practice their religion. Now of course, there's going to have to be Mosque included...
Click to expand...

That's the prayer room which is for individuals to use --- no specific religion is represented.

I'm talking about back in Jefferson's day -- the Capitol building was used for church services.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
You agree that your comment was ignorant!
Click to expand...
of course if it was ignorant the liberal would not be so afraid to say why it is. Its important to have a reason. Sorry
 
Josie said:
That's the prayer room which is for individuals to use --- no specific religion is represented.

I'm talking about back in Jefferson's day -- the Capitol building was used for church services.
Click to expand...

It was used for services yes, but not officially. You implied some sort of registration. Jefferson was okay with it because it was non denominational and voluntary. It's sort of like services given aboard naval vessels.
 
jet57 said:
It was used for services yes, but not officially. You implied some sort of registration. Jefferson was okay with it because it was non denominational and voluntary. It's sort of like services given aboard naval vessels.
Click to expand...

Except it was. The Speaker brought the concept of having church services in the Capitol building before Congress they approved it in 1800. Do you honestly think preachers and priests just started church there without permission?
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
Except it was. The Speaker brought the concept of having church services in the Capitol building before Congress they approved it in 1800. Do you honestly think preachers and priests just started church there without permission?
Click to expand...
It was not official in the sense that it was required or encouraged or on the agenda. Services were permitted, but that doesn’t make them official. Oh, and there were certainly no priests...not in those days.
 
pinqy said:
It was not official in the sense that it was required or encouraged or on the agenda. Services were permitted, but that doesn’t make them official. Oh, and there were certainly no priests...not in those days.
Click to expand...

I never said it was required attendance. It began with Protestant ministers and Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.

164D864C-22AE-4EB8-B927-054589F193A8.jpg
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
I never said it was required attendance. It began with Protestant ministers and Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.

View attachment 67227760
Click to expand...
In what way, then, are you considering it “official?” Services were allowed for the convenience of members of Congress because there were very few if any churches in the District. But that doesn’t make them official services.
M
 
James972 said:
no the idea was to promote religion and religious values by not letting evil govt interfere with your free exercise
Click to expand...
Since the state governments were interfering with free exercise was by promoting and supporting particular denominations, it can hardly be said that the purpose of the 1st amendment was to promote religion. Quite the opposite: it was to prevent the Federal government from promoting religion.
 
pinqy said:
In what way, then, are you considering it “official?” Services were allowed for the convenience of members of Congress because there were very few if any churches in the District. But that doesn’t make them official services.
M
Click to expand...

It was approved by Congress to be used as a church. I didn't say anyone was obligated to attend.
 
Josie said:
Except it was. The Speaker brought the concept of having church services in the Capitol building before Congress they approved it in 1800. Do you honestly think preachers and priests just started church there without permission?
Click to expand...

No, it was never official, just a request and there was never a vote on it. At the time they thought it was okay.
 
Josie said:
It was approved by Congress to be used as a church. I didn't say anyone was obligated to attend.
Click to expand...

No, it was NOT approved by Congress to be used as a church. It was approved by Congress to allow religious services to be conducted on Sundays, when Congress was not in session. That does not make it a church. Nor does that make them official services of Congress, especially since no one sect was allowed dominance.
 
pinqy said:
It was not official in the sense that it was required or encouraged or on the agenda. Services were permitted, but that doesn’t make them official. Oh, and there were certainly no priests...not in those days.
Click to expand...

Priests started services in 1826.
 
pinqy said:
No, it was NOT approved by Congress to be used as a church. It was approved by Congress to allow religious services to be conducted on Sundays, when Congress was not in session. That does not make it a church. Nor does that make them official services of Congress, especially since no one sect was allowed dominance.
Click to expand...

Whatever you need to tell yourself. :shrug:
 
pinqy said:
Since the state governments were interfering with free exercise was by promoting and supporting particular denominations, it can hardly be said that the purpose of the 1st amendment was to promote religion. Quite the opposite: it was to prevent the Federal government from promoting religion.
Click to expand...

Constitution did not say anything about promoting religion. it said feds could not establish a religion. Do you see now?
 
Clapton is God said:
A common objection of neo-conservatives is that the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the U.S. Constitution. This is true also of "the trinity" in the Bible. The term is not found, but the principle is. Obviously, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" contains this principle, but that is not the whole picture. States like the Commonwealth of Virginia had official state religion of Baptist a long time ago. At the time, this was not a violation of the "establishment clause" as the 1st Amendment was not binding on the states, but it was most certainly a violation of religious freedom as it took Jefferson's "Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom" to abolish the state religion.

The term "separation of church and state" gained prominence in American politics after the Supreme Court decision in Everson v Board of Education. If you read this decision and many others, you will understand that the 1st Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was a protection that applied only to the Federal government. Many modern conservatives may find this hard to believe, but a state legislature could actually ban privately owned firearms and it would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment as it applied only to the Federal government. This is basic "federalism".

After the civil war the 14th Amendment was "ratified" and was the first amendment which stated "No state shall..." The war and specifically this amendment turned the Constitution on it's head and started not only the vast growth in corporate power and corporate personhood "rights", but made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states which the courts expanded more and more especially throughout the 20th Century. These many court decisions will state the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc...is applicable through the 14th Amendment.

People can blame "secular liberals" or whoever all they want, but this goes back to the American civil war. My point is not to say which system was better or worse, but to give understanding to those who do not know this.
Click to expand...

Roger Williams - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Founder of the Baptist faith,friend of Thomas Jefferson.
 
For those who choose to believe the tales told by liars like David Barton, I offer the words of Margaret Bayard Smith, wealthy socialite and publisher of Washington's first newspaper, the National Intelligencer. In 1837, she wrote the First Forty Years of Washington Society in which she provided a description of those early "church services"


... I have called these Sunday assemblies in the capitol, a
congregation, but the almost exclusive appropriation of that
word to religious assemblies, prevents its being a descriptive
term as applied in the present case, since the gay company
who thronged the H. R. looked very little like a religious
assembly. The occasion presented for display was not only
a novel, but a favourable one for the youth, beauty and fashion
of the city, Georgetown and environs. The members of
Congress, gladly gave up their seats for such fair auditors,
and either lounged in the lobbies, or round the fire places, or
stood beside the ladies of their acquaintance. This sabbathday-resort
became so fashionable, that the floor of the house
offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker’s
chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in was
crowded with ladies in their gayest costume and their attendant
beaux and who led them to their seats with the same
gallantry as is exhibited in a ball room. Smiles, nods, whispers,
nay sometimes tittering marked their recognition of
each other, and beguiled the tedium of the service. Often,
when cold, a lady would leave her seat and led by her attending
beau would make her way through the crowd to one of
the fire-places where she could laugh and talk at her ease.
One of the officers of the house, followed by his attendant
with a great bag over his shoulder, precisely at 12 o’clock,
would make his way through the hall to the depository of letters
to put them in the mail-bag, which sometimes had a
most ludicrous effect, and always diverted attention from the
preacher. The musick was as little in union with devotional
feelings, as the place. The marine-band, were the performers.
Their scarlet uniform, their various instruments, made
quite a dazzling appearance in the gallery. The marches they
played were good and inspiring, but in their attempts to
accompany the psalm-singing of the congregation, they
completely failed and after a while, the practice was discontinued,—it
was too ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
I’m in UK. Same thing here. At city council meeting all were asked to stand and pray. I submitted a motion for discussion at the next meeting, saying that we are a multi-ethnic society. We should not presume that everyone shares the same religious viewpoint. Result : for the first time in pretty well forever all political parties agreed. Each councillor stood up to declare what an utter b*******d I was. Even the word ‘blasphemy’ was used, which was reported by the national press.
The a motion was passed unanimously that from now until forever Christian prayer should be the first item on the agenda. (Not quite the result I hoped for! But it did result in much press debate)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom