• 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"

C

Clapton is God

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
89
Reaction score
40
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
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...

that would depend on the state's own constitution.
 
The meaning of "separation of church and state" has evolved over the years. In 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building and many government officials attended church there up until Lincoln's term. Congress also reviewed and approved a version of the Bible in the 1700s and public school teachers taught scripture to their students. Apparently it didn't mean what many think it means now.
 
Master PO said:
the part i bolden in his statement.

the bill rights did not apply to states until the USSC did it by incorporation.

before that state governments laws concerning firearms would depend on what the states constitution stated.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that the 14th had cleared that point up.

PS: That is an issue for the EU that still works on the hypothesis of sovereignty of the members.
 
joG said:
I would have thought that the 14th had cleared that point up.

PS: That is an issue for the EU that still works on the hypothesis of sovereignty of the members.
Click to expand...

today when there is a violation of ones rights concerning firearms, everyone looks to the 2nd amendment, but before incorporation they would have looked at their state's constitution.

the bill of rights are [restrictive clauses] placed on the federal government to create no law concerning the rights of the people
 
Master PO said:
the part i bolden in his statement.

the bill rights did not apply to states until the USSC did it by incorporation.

before that state governments laws concerning firearms would depend on what the states constitution stated.
Click to expand...

Which 44 of them have the right to bear arms in them
 
Josie said:
The meaning of "separation of church and state" has evolved over the years. In 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building and many government officials attended church there up until Lincoln's term. Congress also reviewed and approved a version of the Bible in the 1700s and public school teachers taught scripture to their students. Apparently it didn't mean what many think it means now.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but a distinction that needs mentioning is that in the 1700s and a lot of the 1800s there weren't "public schools" as we have them today. Federal dollars weren't used for classrooms, teachers, etc...

Why are religious conservatives so "dependent on government" to educate their children and use tax dollars to teach their children the Bible? Why can't "the family" and the church do it?
 
Master PO said:
i can only assume here, that the others did not include it because they were written after incorporation.
Click to expand...

Nope all written before

NY, NJ, MD, MN, IA and CA
 
Clapton is God said:
Interesting, but there are a few distinctions that need mentioning. First, in the 1700s there weren't "public schools" as we have them today. Federal dollars weren't used for classrooms, teachers, etc...

Why are religious conservatives so "dependent on government" to educate their children and use tax dollars to teach their children the Bible? Why can't "the family" and the church do it?
Click to expand...

Actually there have been tax-funded public schools since the 1600s.
 
Master PO said:
today when there is a violation of ones rights concerning firearms, everyone looks to the 2nd amendment, but before incorporation they would have looked at their state's constitution.

the bill of rights are [restrictive clauses] placed on the federal government to create no law concerning the rights of the people
Click to expand...

That is the way the US developed.
 
Clapton is God said:
A common objection of neo-conservatives is that...........
Click to expand...

OP, you narrowed your focus (for this particular discussion) to neoconservatives.
Did you mean to do that?

Your foundational argument could well be aimed at traditional conservatives, Republicans in general, non-politically-aligned church goers, theists as a rule, non-denominational undecideds, and even Libertarian agnostics who don't believe in God (but who also don't agree with the average militant/anti-religion/agnostic's views on the separation of church and State).

Was your choice of the term, 'neoconservatives' purposefully narrow, or did you mean to wholesale sweep all those categories of men and women into that one convenient box?

Forgive me for opening up a can of worms, as that was not my intent.
I'm just curious.

:)
 
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...


The 14th Amendment and then incorporation. This is a situation in which truth meets reality.


If you delve beyond the thin surface into the ratification of the 14th Amendment you will find that it was not ever even close to being properly, lawfully or constitutionally ratified. So the truth is that it should not really a guiding force in our framework... and if not, then of course the incorporation of the bill of rights to the states loses its major premise.

The fact that we accept this impostor amendment as lawfully constitutional… that is the reality.
 
Josie said:
The meaning of "separation of church and state" has evolved over the years. In 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building and many government officials attended church there up until Lincoln's term. Congress also reviewed and approved a version of the Bible in the 1700s and public school teachers taught scripture to their students. Apparently it didn't mean what many think it means now.
Click to expand...

The whole business comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

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, & 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 & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & 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 & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Click to expand...
 
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...

Think you might be interested in this bit of History.

Roger Williams - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
 
Clapton is God said:
Interesting, but a distinction that needs mentioning is that in the 1700s and a lot of the 1800s there weren't "public schools" as we have them today. Federal dollars weren't used for classrooms, teachers, etc...

Why are religious conservatives so "dependent on government" to educate their children and use tax dollars to teach their children the Bible? Why can't "the family" and the church do it?
Click to expand...

That's because the money those parents would have used to educate their children were already paid to the government school with their property tax bill. Parents who send their children to a private school or home school have to pay the government school regardless.
 
MaryAnne said:
Think you might be interested in this bit of History.

Roger Williams - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
Click to expand...

I'm actually a fan of Roger Williams. I prefer his liberty of conscience over the term that is primarily used now days which is tolerance. Tolerance implies that the majority view is going to allow a particular minority view while William's liberty of conscience leaves that between the individual and his/her creator or to the individual alone. No view needs to be tolerated because they each are free. I think today's mainstream evangelicals could use a good dose of christian thinkers of that era like Roger Williams. :)

You may have already read this, but James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is a classic out of the same school of thought.
Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
 
SDET said:
That's because the money those parents would have used to educate their children were already paid to the government school with their property tax bill. Parents who send their children to a private school or home school have to pay the government school regardless.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why they can't teach their children the Bible at home and at church. Is the church failing and needs the government to step in? I don't understand this. Why does the government have to do it? Also what theological position is going to be taught? Should the Koran also be taught in school as fact because muslims pay taxes too? How is this different from taking public taxes for the Church of England? People are being taxed for it who don't subscribe to those views.

The other post someone had regarding Roger William's liberty of conscience is perfect for this.
 
Clapton is God said:
I'm actually a fan of Roger Williams. I prefer his liberty of conscience over the term that is primarily used now days which is tolerance. Tolerance implies that the majority view is going to allow a particular minority view while William's liberty of conscience leaves that between the individual and his/her creator or to the individual alone. No view needs to be tolerated because they each are free. I think today's mainstream evangelicals could use a good dose of christian thinkers of that era like Roger Williams. :)

You may have already read this, but James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is a classic out of the same school of thought.
Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
Click to expand...

I was attending a Baptist Church and began to research the beginning of the Church after reading Letters To The Editir from three Pastors. One stating there was no separation, the other two saying there was.

I have always been a strong believer of separation. I knew I was in the wrong Church. They do not follow what Roger Williams and I knew. Not all Baptist Churches are the same and they have a great division at the Baptist Convention.

I will read your article. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom