• 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!

Why Jefferson wrote "separation of Church and State"

The difference between the phrases separation of church and state and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion is not a small one.
 
Henrin said:
The difference between the phrases separation of church and state and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion is not a small one.
Click to expand...

Jefferson clearly disagreed.
 
pinqy said:
Jefferson clearly disagreed.
Click to expand...

Then he was wrong. The first phrase "separation of church and state" would include anyone in government doing anything even closely related to faith, while the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" would only include things done by congress, passed into law, and done towards the effort of respecting the establishment of religion.
 
Henrin said:
Then he was wrong. The first phrase "separation of church and state" would include anyone in government doing anything even closely related to faith,
Click to expand...
How did you arrive at that conclusion? He was wrong about what his own words meant? Separation of Church and State means that neither controls or influences the other. Now Jefferson felt that he should not do even minor things like declare a day of Thanksgiving or prayer, but it seems clear to me that he meant that as a personal preference and not as a strict rule.


while the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" would only include things done by congress, passed into law, and done towards the effort of respecting the establishment of religion.
Click to expand...
Meaning the government should not dictate a proper religion and no religion should dictate a proper government. Separation. In Connecticut at that time there was no separation...the leaders of the state were the leaders of the Congregationalist Church and they governed both in tandem.
 
Visbek said:
I can't help but notice that you seem offended by the suggestion that church and state should be separate. :D

At any rate, it seems clear based on the text, the writings of the ratifiers, and much of the context that the intent was to keep church and state separate -- as much for the church as for the state and citizens.
Click to expand...
:roll: Dear sweet baby hay Zeus....
 
pinqy said:
Many people like to point out that the words "Separation of Church and State do not appear in the Constitution. Which seems odd to me, because I'm not aware of anyone who claims they do. But, just as "right to a fair trial" is not explicitly stated, but is still a fundamental cornerstone of our legal system, separation of Church and State is a fundamental cornerstone of our Government.

So where did the phrase come from, and what did Jefferson mean?
Click to expand...

Jefferson's clear intention was simply to prevent the United States from becoming a clerical state while at the same time maintaining freedom of religion. It was never meant to prevent prayer in school, a manger scene in a public park, etc. It does mean that we will not establish an official state religion and enforce it on all citizens.
 
The need for separation of church and state began with Henry VIII, who established the Church of England. Henry VIII was original part of the Catholic Church but had a falling out, because the Pope would not allow him to get a divorce. As a result, he established his own church in England, to suit his needs. This began the trend of the state forming a state run religion, to shake down the people for taxes and restrict freedoms,The Pilgrims who migrated to the US, wanted religious freedom. They wanted to separate from the corrupt state run church, led by two faced politicians. The separation of church and state was to assure no more Henry VIII affect but to get back to pure religion.

The main difference between the church and the state is the state has an army, can make binding laws and has prisons. The church has none of these things that are legally binding. This is not a fair fight, which is why the church is more protected; level the field. The state can impose fines and throw people in prison for not obeying. The church does not have such teeth. The state can pass a taboo law or add Satanism to the church, at force of gun, but the church has to go through the entire political system, which is not a fair fight. It comes down to a fair fight for the hearts and souls.
 
wellwisher said:
The need for separation of church and state began with Henry VIII, who established the Church of England. Henry VIII was original part of the Catholic Church but had a falling out, because the Pope would not allow him to get a divorce. As a result, he established his own church in England, to suit his needs. This began the trend of the state forming a state run religion, to shake down the people for taxes and restrict freedoms,The Pilgrims who migrated to the US, wanted religious freedom. They wanted to separate from the corrupt state run church, led by two faced politicians. The separation of church and state was to assure no more Henry VIII affect but to get back to pure religion.
Click to expand...
Ummmm no. The comingling of church and state go back millennia with almost all nations having an official religion. Armenia adopted Christianity as the national religion in 301AD. While some tolerated other religions, there are clear examples of oppression, such as King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain who forced the conversion of Muslims and Jews to Catholicism in 1502, leading to the infamous Spanish Inquisition.

And the Pilgrims did not want religious freedom as a concept, they were persecuted as dissenters from the CoE, but went on to establish their own theocratic government. Neither the Plymouth Colony (Pilgrims), nor the Massachusetts Bay Colony (Puritans) or their off-shoot of Connecticut (Congregationalists) believed in or practiced separation of Church and State.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Jefferson's clear intention was simply to prevent the United States from becoming a clerical state while at the same time maintaining freedom of religion. It was never meant to prevent prayer in school, a manger scene in a public park, etc. It does mean that we will not establish an official state religion and enforce it on all citizens.
Click to expand...

Prayer in school is not prevented, individual prayer can take place any time, anywhere, and no law CAN prevent it. OTOH, prayer in school dictated by a teacher or school authority IS establishing an official religion and interferes with individual children's freedom of religion.
Religious symbols displayed in public places also "establishes an official state religion" unless equal access is accorded to all religions which is probably impossible. The First Amendment means more than simply not declaring an official state religion; it means that neither Congress, the state, nor any level of government can pass a law, regulation, or rule RESPECTING an establishment of religion, and one of the important aspects of that is that no citizen is compelled to financially support any religion. That means that no citizen should have to support with tax money the maintenance of religious symbols placed on public property even if that amount is small.
 
OKgrannie said:
Prayer in school is not prevented, individual prayer can take place any time, anywhere, and no law CAN prevent it.
Click to expand...

Agreed...but add that organized prayer in school is not legally prevented either as long as participation is not manadatory.


OTOH, prayer in school dictated by a teacher or school authority IS establishing an official religion and interferes with individual children's freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

The keyword is "dictated" It does not prevent organized voluntary prayer.


Religious symbols displayed in public places also "establishes an official state religion" unless equal access is accorded to all religions which is probably impossible.
Click to expand...

Utter baloney. The first amendment does not ban religious symbols or displays in public places. Most religious symbols are part of our culture. We are primarily a Christian society, Therefore the religious displays in public parks, courts, etc are going to be related to Christianity. The first Amendment does not ban that. And if I were to pack up and move to a nation where the primary religion is Buddhism or Hindu, etc, I would not demand equal time for Christianity. I would respect the local culture and practice my own religion either where Christians meet or in privacy.


The First Amendment means more than simply not declaring an official state religion; it means that neither Congress, the state, nor any level of government can pass a law, regulation, or rule RESPECTING an establishment of religion,
Click to expand...

That is where you should have stopped. What is below is just creative addition.



and one of the important aspects of that is that no citizen is compelled to financially support any religion. That means that no citizen should have to support with tax money the maintenance of religious symbols placed on public property even if that amount is small.
Click to expand...

Show me that clause in the first amendment. There are religious symbols at the Congress and the US Supreme Court as well as many other official government buildings. Maintenance of those symbols is primarily part of normal maintenance and janitorial duties. Why would anyone have a probably with taxes covering that?
 
ObamacareFail said:
There are religious symbols at the Congress and the US Supreme Court as well as many other official government buildings. Maintenance of those symbols is primarily part of normal maintenance and janitorial duties. Why would anyone have a probably with taxes covering that?
Click to expand...
No one does, because they are not promoting or endorsing religion. Let's take the Supreme Court. The Eastern Pediment features Moses, Confucius, Solon, and allegorical figures of law and justice. The South wall of the courtroom features Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian. The North wall features Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon.

So while Moses, Confucius, Solomon, and Mohammed are religious figures, they are not part of a religious display. Their appearance is secular.
 
American said:
Funny how every atheist or non-religious person takes Jefferson's Danbury letter like the Gospel from God, but can't seem to accept the plain text of the 1st Amendment. Where in that amendment is a prohibition on churches mentioned? Please, just quote the part.
Click to expand...

Has anybody claimed there is a prohibition on religion anywhere in the Constitution?

Jefferson wrote an opinion in response to a question from Danbury. Somehow today this opinion has assumed the same weight as a SCOTUS ruling.

The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law". Nothing more. Congress hasn't.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Agreed...but add that organized prayer in school is not legally prevented either as long as participation is not manadatory.
Click to expand...

Depends on whom is doing the organizing. Another student is probably OK, but an authority would be coercive. Students should not be made to feel like outsiders just because they don't participate in the majority religious activities.



The keyword is "dictated" It does not prevent organized voluntary prayer.
Click to expand...

See above.

Utter baloney. The first amendment does not ban religious symbols or displays in public places. Most religious symbols are part of our culture. We are primarily a Christian society, Therefore the religious displays in public parks, courts, etc are going to be related to Christianity. The first Amendment does not ban that. And if I were to pack up and move to a nation where the primary religion is Buddhism or Hindu, etc, I would not demand equal time for Christianity. I would respect the local culture and practice my own religion either where Christians meet or in privacy.
Click to expand...

Courts have ruled that they do unless they are a part of a historical display. This country is supposed to a "freedom of religion" country, NOT a majority religion country. Citizens should not ever be compelled to participate or acknowledge any religion they do not choose, and that includes public prayers at public events and majority religious displays in taxpayer owned property.



Show me that clause in the first amendment. There are religious symbols at the Congress and the US Supreme Court as well as many other official government buildings. Maintenance of those symbols is primarily part of normal maintenance and janitorial duties. Why would anyone have a probably with taxes covering that?
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that the display of religious symbols on public property from one religion only IS establishing a state religion (what else is it when one religion ONLY is recognized by the state?), some displays require regular maintenance such as mowing around a Ten Commandments monument. The only purpose of displaying such symbols on public property is to ensure that the majority religion remains recognized by the state because the First Amendment guarantees that such symbols can be placed on private property without interference from the state.
 
The OP is very well said. The new America was well versed in the absolutism of the church over western Europe and disastrous damage through war and oppression that came with it. As such, knowing both to be necessary evils in any society, the best way to allow both to exist in the same room would be through a legislated separation which found it's way into our constitution.
 
American said:
Funny how every atheist or non-religious person takes Jefferson's Danbury letter like the Gospel from God, but can't seem to accept the plain text of the 1st Amendment. Where in that amendment is a prohibition on churches mentioned? Please, just quote the part.
Click to expand...

Jefferson wasn't God; he like most of the founders were just very smart men who knew the dangers of religion and especially when mixed with state powers. THAT disaster was the chief reference for the 1st amendment. You should read the amendment more carefully.
 
pinqy said:
But, just as "right to a fair trial" is not explicitly stated, .
Click to expand...

Seeing as everyone else wants to concentrate on the first amendment i might try the sixth.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]
Click to expand...

How more explicitly would you like "a fair trial"to be stated?
 
soylentgreen said:
Seeing as everyone else wants to concentrate on the first amendment i might try the sixth.



How more explicitly would you like "a fair trial"to be stated?
Click to expand...
That's my point. Just as the words "fair trial" don't have to be in the constitution for the principle to apply, neither do the words "separation of church and state" have to be in to apply
 
jet57 said:
Jefferson wasn't God; he like most of the founders were just very smart men who knew the dangers of religion and especially when mixed with state powers. THAT disaster was the chief reference for the 1st amendment. You should read the amendment more carefully.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was God, you're dismissed.
 
jimbo said:
Has anybody claimed there is a prohibition on religion anywhere in the Constitution?

Jefferson wrote an opinion in response to a question from Danbury. Somehow today this opinion has assumed the same weight as a SCOTUS ruling.

The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law". Nothing more. Congress hasn't.
Click to expand...

Sure, every time someone bows their head in a public place, some govt official steps up and stops it.
 
American said:
I didn't say he was God, you're dismissed.
Click to expand...

Nothing intelligent to say again eh? Jefferson knew exactly what he was saying and why: a wall of separation is exactly what he intended to say because he and all the other Americans knew from direct experience that God and government was a very dangerous thing to a society that wants it's freedom and liberty.

Go to church today did 'ya?
 
jet57 said:
Nothing intelligent to say again eh? Jefferson knew exactly what he was saying and why: a wall of separation is exactly what he intended to say because he and all the other Americans knew from direct experience that God and government was a very dangerous thing to a society that wants it's freedom and liberty.

Go to church today did 'ya?
Click to expand...

He was hardly in common with other founders, but he had much good to say.
 
American said:
He was hardly in common with other founders, but he had much good to say.
Click to expand...

He was very in common with the founders; he knew what he was talkin about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom