• 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"

Fenton Lum said:
Religions are authoritarian systems, that's why violence and warfare were required to subjugate the tribes of Europe. Just as it required violence and warfare to subjugate the tribes of the americas.
Click to expand...

Huh??? Religion spans an array of structures and types. The current Aglican church is non-centralized and per its website:
"There is a structure for doctrinal centralization, but in the absence of central authority the doctrine is followed by consensus and not by mandate."

Sounds like a real authoritarian system... So, by definition your premise fails which, of course, calls into question your conclusion.
 
ibelsd said:
Huh??? Religion spans an array of structures and types. The current Aglican church is non-centralized and per its website:
"There is a structure for doctrinal centralization, but in the absence of central authority the doctrine is followed by consensus and not by mandate."

Sounds like a real authoritarian system... So, by definition your premise fails which, of course, calls into question your conclusion.
Click to expand...

You will submit to the authority of a male dominator god, there's your conclusion.
 
Thoreau72 said:
That's rather a stretch, isn't it?

The People maintain power over the government. All political power flows from the People.

Render unto Caesar, etc

Within the design of government, the People have no power over religion.
Click to expand...

Sure they do, because the govt has no power over religion, because none was given.
 
jet57 said:
No; comparison of alleged unlikely scenarios.
Click to expand...

I hope so but I do not think so , as see all the southern states passing anti-LBGT laws mainly for religion reasons even those these laws are costing them a lot of business as a result.
 
BillRM said:
I hope so but I do not think so , as see all the southern states passing anti-LBGT laws mainly for religion reasons even those these laws are costing them a lot of business as a result.
Click to expand...

Yeah; well that's the whole point that Goldwater was stressing and since Ronald Reagan opened up the door of legitimacy for these people ushering in Jerry Falwell, we've a real decline in social enlightenment in favor of a clandestine theocracy. Money means nothing to the zealot, because once they take control of business, and the bakery not selling to gays is going to be interesting; then the zealot controls the means of production. They have a foot in the door now with this health care and religious concerns (i.e not having to provide of contraception in employee health care), we are knocking on the door of a constitutional crises and the Supreme court is stacked.

But, the Dems for their part will continue to roll over for anything as long as they can stay in office.
 
American said:
Sure they do, because the govt has no power over religion, because none was given.
Click to expand...

From where do the people get this mythical power over religion? That portion of the population that is agnostic wants no power over religion. It prefers to laugh at the superstitions and silliness.

As noted in Susan Jacoby's 2004 book "Freethinkers", that was the term used to describe those like me who take a pass on religious superstition and dogma. Power over religion? That's a strange joke.
 
Fenton Lum said:
You will submit to the authority of a male dominator god, there's your conclusion.
Click to expand...

I cannot comprehend your argument. A dominator god??? My conclusion??? You expressing general animosity towards deism more than religion it seems. But, honestly, maybe English is your second language so I don't want to be too harsh here, but you make no sense at all.
 
Did you know that 38 of the 50 States have constitutional provisions barring any funding of religious institutions? Not always followed by conservative legislators but the words are in there.
 
Fenton Lum said:
You will submit to the authority of a male dominator god, there's your conclusion.
Click to expand...

How can a one of it kind all powerful being be male or female for that matter?

A male god imply a female god one would think and then little rug rats gods.
 
Thoreau72 said:
From where do the people get this mythical power over religion? That portion of the population that is agnostic wants no power over religion. It prefers to laugh at the superstitions and silliness.

As noted in Susan Jacoby's 2004 book "Freethinkers", that was the term used to describe those like me who take a pass on religious superstition and dogma. Power over religion? That's a strange joke.
Click to expand...

People form their own churches in their communities. It's pretty elementary, can't understand why so many are acting so ignorant about this.
 
American said:
People form their own churches in their communities. It's pretty elementary, can't understand why so many are acting so ignorant about this.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you have a dog in this fight, and if I'm right, I do understand your statements.

I am glad to see you seem to have walked back your claim that The People have some power over religion. In reality, for those who participate in organized religion, the church has power over the people.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I'm guessing that you have a dog in this fight, and if I'm right, I do understand your statements.

I am glad to see you seem to have walked back your claim that The People have some power over religion. In reality, for those who participate in organized religion, the church has power over the people.
Click to expand...

I've walked nothing back. Church having power over the people is your personal opinion, because obviously you have a dog in the fight. I don't attend church, but I admit to believing in God.
 
American said:
I've walked nothing back. Church having power over the people is your personal opinion, because obviously you have a dog in the fight. I don't attend church, but I admit to believing in God.
Click to expand...

I was raised in the Catholic church, including 16 years of Catholic education. I lost my religion more than 20 years ago. I am intimately familiar with the power a church has over its 'flock', and the historical record is very clear on it too.

I'm happy to understand that a person who does not attend, has not been a member of a church, would have no idea of the power it has over its members, and I am not surprised to hear such a person profess expert knowledge of something he has not seen from the inside. :peace
 
pinqy said:
"Congress shall make no law regarding an Establishment of Religion." meaning no national church. The 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies them to the States, so no state churches either. And, of course, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which naturally also means the government can neither compel someone to participate in religion or restrict their (private) exercise.

What then is your interpretation of the "plain language" of the 1st amendment?
Click to expand...

yet it has nothing to do about people publicly expressing or even government officials expressing their religious views.
it simply says that the government cannot interfere and or establish a church.
 
pinqy said:
Then you have no problem with bans on school prayer. So, what exactly is your complaint?
Click to expand...

since there is nothing that says that people can't pray in school and the fact that the constitution prevents government from preventing
people from praying then school prayer ban would be unconstitutional.

so far they have ruled that as long as the prayer does not disrupt a classroom then it is perfectly allowable.
 
ludin said:
since there is nothing that says that people can't pray in school and the fact that the constitution prevents government from preventing
people from praying then school prayer ban would be unconstitutional.

so far they have ruled that as long as the prayer does not disrupt a classroom then it is perfectly allowable.
Click to expand...

There are parts of the country where most of the kids are Muslim. Is it OK if time is taken from from the school to make all the kiddies pray 5 times a day?
 
ataraxia said:
There are parts of the country where most of the kids are Muslim. Is it OK if time is taken from from the school to make all the kiddies pray 5 times a day?
Click to expand...

that would be a disruption to the classroom did you not read what I said or just ignore it because you didn't want to?
I seriously do not understand how you can ask a question when it was answered right in what you quoted.

so I suggest go back and read what is said.
 
ludin said:
that would be a disruption to the classroom did you not read what I said or just ignore it because you didn't want to?
I seriously do not understand how you can ask a question when it was answered right in what you quoted.

so I suggest go back and read what is said.
Click to expand...

So when has praying "if it doesn't disrupt the classroom" ever even been an issue? I did it all the time before my chemistry tests. Never seemed to help though, coming to think of it....
 
ludin said:
since there is nothing that says that people can't pray in school and the fact that the constitution prevents government from preventing
people from praying then school prayer ban would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The argument was that the First amendment ONLY applies to acts of Congress so that Congress can't make laws regarding an establishment of religion. But that also means that only Congress is prohibited from infringing on free exercise and a school, business, whatever would be in its rights to ban prayer.

I don't agree with that interpretation, since I hold that the Bill of Rights became applicable to the states after ratification of the 14th amendment, but people can't have it both ways....that it's ok to mandate prayer but not ok to ban it.
 
ludin said:
since there is nothing that says that people can't pray in school and the fact that the constitution prevents government from preventing
people from praying then school prayer ban would be unconstitutional.

so far they have ruled that as long as the prayer does not disrupt a classroom then it is perfectly allowable.
Click to expand...
. . . and does not disturb other individuals. Had a friend who taught in public community college in rural America. Every semester during the first class, he would always tells his students that they could pray, of course, in class if they wanted to, and that on test day it might be a good idea. He also said that they could not disturb their neighbors or disrupt the educational process; if they did, they would get the heave ho. He never had to in 28 years. Just common sense.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
The argument was that the First amendment ONLY applies to acts of Congress so that Congress can't make laws regarding an establishment of religion. But that also means that only Congress is prohibited from infringing on free exercise and a school, business, whatever would be in its rights to ban prayer.

I don't agree with that interpretation, since I hold that the Bill of Rights became applicable to the states after ratification of the 14th amendment, but people can't have it both ways....that it's ok to mandate prayer but not ok to ban it.
Click to expand...

Try its not ok to mandate it or ban it, so long as it doesn't disrupt the secular activity of learning.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Try its not ok to mandate it or ban it, so long as it doesn't disrupt the secular activity of learning.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of many who are in favor of prayer in schools: they insist it's allowed because the first amendment only applies to acts of Congress, but at the same time say schools can't forbid prayer because it's protected by the first amendment. Don't you see the contradiction?
 
American said:
Sure, every time someone bows their head in a public place, some govt official steps up and stops it.
Click to expand...

People are allowed to bow and pray in public places. It is the governments that are not allowed to endorse any particular religion using religious words or symbols on government held public property. It is government officials who are not allowed to put up religious displays or to allow anyone else to put them up on public government property. You can wear your religion on your sleeve in public if you wish, because you are only representing your personal belief. You can't use government held public property to display your personal religious belief. This places absolutely no unfair burden on the religious to profess their personally chosen faith.
 
devildavid said:
People are allowed to bow and pray in public places. It is the governments that are not allowed to endorse any particular religion using religious words or symbols on government held public property. It is government officials who are not allowed to put up religious displays or to allow anyone else to put them up on public government property. You can wear your religion on your sleeve in public if you wish, because you are only representing your personal belief. You can't use government held public property to display your personal religious belief. This places absolutely no unfair burden on the religious to profess their personally chosen faith.
Click to expand...

The is the same as passing a law respecting establishment of religion. The city streets are also government held public property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom