• 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"

ObamacareFail said:
Wrong. It only bans establishing an official state religion and forcing it on everyone, which would make us a clerical state. It does not ban government support of prayers or religious symbols.
Click to expand...
Officially approved display of religious symbols and officially establishing prayers IS establishing a state religion.
 
pinqy said:
Officially approved display of religious symbols and officially establishing prayers IS establishing a state religion.
Click to expand...

Only if it limits those religious symbols to a state approved subset. Having a variety of religious symbols displayed in a state (government?) cemetery does not establish any particular religion.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Only if it limits those religious symbols to a state approved subset. Having a variety of religious symbols displayed in a state (government?) cemetery does not establish any particular religion.
Click to expand...

Well, sure. But allowing religious symbols of the family's choice, even with some limitations on approved symbols is not mandating symbols. Requiring a Star of David prominently displayed in a government cemetery would be establishing a religion. Requiring that schools display the 5 pillars of Islam in isolation would also be. However, a display of the Ten Commandments, the 5 pillars of Islam, the Eightfold Path, and any other list(s) of good behavior would be fine.
 
vegas giants said:
SCOTUS disagrees and has held that view for decades
Click to expand...

It has always depended on the makeup of the court. When inflicted with too many activist librul judges it has made decisions that go against the first amendment. When the court is balanced with a majority who interpret the law rather then legislating from the bench, they get it right.
 
vegas giants said:
Exercise away. Just keep it out of my kids school
Click to expand...

A wise parent would not make such a statement. Let the kids hear from both sides and make up their own mind, rather then indoctrinating them.
 
pinqy said:
Officially approved display of religious symbols and officially establishing prayers IS establishing a state religion.
Click to expand...

Establishing a religion is picking one religion over all others and making it the official state religion. Look at many nations in the muslim world for examples. They are clerical states.
 
ObamacareFail said:
A wise parent would not make such a statement. Let the kids hear from both sides and make up their own mind, rather then indoctrinating them.
Click to expand...

We get this, "Let the kids hear from both sides and make up their own mind(s)" a lot these days, in regards to science (climate change and evolution) and religion. The unacknowledged problem seems to be that in regards to religion, there are more than two sides. Often the same people who argue for teaching "both sides" are the same people who say schools should focus on "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic" and let all that fancy stuff just be something for those damn libruls to indoctrinate their kids.
 
ObamacareFail said:
A wise parent would not make such a statement. Let the kids hear from both sides and make up their own mind, rather then indoctrinating them.
Click to expand...

I am a wise parent. Religion belongs in your church not in school
 
ObamacareFail said:
It has always depended on the makeup of the court. When inflicted with too many activist librul judges it has made decisions that go against the first amendment. When the court is balanced with a majority who interpret the law rather then legislating from the bench, they get it right.
Click to expand...

Just keep it out of my kids school and public buildings
 
ObamacareFail said:
Establishing a religion is picking one religion over all others and making it the official state religion. Look at many nations in the muslim world for examples. They are clerical states.
Click to expand...
So, then if a state legislature wrote an official prayer, and required that teachers recite this prayer, and no other, and for any child not to attend, she would have to announce to the class she was opposed and leave the room, I would consider that establishing a religion. It establishes approved time, manner, and content of religious practice.
 
Somerville said:
We get this, "Let the kids hear from both sides and make up their own mind(s)" a lot these days, in regards to science (climate change and evolution) and religion. The unacknowledged problem seems to be that in regards to religion, there are more than two sides. Often the same people who argue for teaching "both sides" are the same people who say schools should focus on "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic" and let all that fancy stuff just be something for those damn libruls to indoctrinate their kids.
Click to expand...

Well, sport, when the kids get a little older, it gets a bit deeper then reading, writing and arithmetic and they are expected to study more diverse subjects. However the schools should not indoctrinate students. This is not Russia or North Korea. While religion should not be forced on students, it should not be banned either. Even organized prayer should be okay as long as students are not forced to participate in it. And yes, to an extent, religion should be covered, as it is part of our present and past history.
 
vegas giants said:
I am a wise parent. Religion belongs in your church not in school
Click to expand...

Based on that statement, I do not see you as a wise parent. A wise parent would not fear his child being exposed to religion and would in fact be against it being banned. The majority of human beings your children will have contact with throughout their lives will be religious at some level.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Well, sport, when the kids get a little older, it gets a bit deeper then reading, writing and arithmetic and they are expected to study more diverse subjects. However the schools should not indoctrinate students. This is not Russia or North Korea. While religion should not be forced on students, it should not be banned either. Even organized prayer should be okay as long as students are not forced to participate in it. And yes, to an extent, religion should be covered, as it is part of our present and past history.
Click to expand...

Religion as history is fine. Organized prayer is a form of coercion and should remain illegal
 
ObamacareFail said:
Based on that statement, I do not see you as a wise parent. A wise parent would not fear his child being exposed to religion and would in fact be against it being banned. The majority of human beings your children will have contact with throughout their lives will be religious at some level.
Click to expand...

My child is exposed to religion. He is a catholic. There is this building called a church he goes to for religious instruction
 
ObamacareFail said:
Well, sport, when the kids get a little older, it gets a bit deeper then reading, writing and arithmetic and they are expected to study more diverse subjects. However the schools should not indoctrinate students. This is not Russia or North Korea. While religion should not be forced on students, it should not be banned either. Even organized prayer should be okay as long as students are not forced to participate in it. And yes, to an extent, religion should be covered, as it is part of our present and past history.
Click to expand...

The bolded words are the core of the problem. What you see as "indoctrination", I may view as actual history or science. What I see as "indoctrination" and you see as providing "both sides" has all too often been nothing more than an excuse for forcing students to observe one specific religion's beliefs as 'truth'.

I agree that religion should be discussed in high schools BUT for me that means ALL religious beliefs and not solely Christianity.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Well, sport, when the kids get a little older, it gets a bit deeper then reading, writing and arithmetic and they are expected to study more diverse subjects. However the schools should not indoctrinate students. This is not Russia or North Korea. While religion should not be forced on students, it should not be banned either. Even organized prayer should be okay as long as students are not forced to participate in it. And yes, to an extent, religion should be covered, as it is part of our present and past history.
Click to expand...

Schools DO indoctrinate their students. Secular schools indoctrinate the way people are supposed to act, think and dress, religious schools do the same thing with a twist.

That is one reason home schooling is seen as a threat by most bureaucrats and politicians.
 
prometeus said:
An often made mistake is equating coincidence with correlation. If human history has taught us anything is that the wheel was not invented by one person but by people all over the globe.
No different with social norms that arose from observation and pragmatism. Theft, unsanctioned killing, at least by common folk, have proven to be impractical, certainly before Christianity and I dare say before the 10 commandments. To simply lay claim to something that is effective because it suits one's narrow beliefs is in the least uneducated. As such, 'which came first' is not circular but moot. Human experience and thinking is what came and is still coming.
Click to expand...


Yes, the prohibition of murder and theft are social edicts, not religious ones. I've seen them emphasized in far flung rural areas, on the other side of the globe, that were barely touched, if at all, by christianity. For example, the sorting out who stole what will draw the immediate attention of a local leader, be he a warlord, a mayor, a patriarch, or a monk.
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
Based on that statement, I do not see you as a wise parent. A wise parent would not fear his child being exposed to religion and would in fact be against it being banned. The majority of human beings your children will have contact with throughout their lives will be religious at some level.
Click to expand...

Set it up like we have for Muslims--give each religion a room to pray in. That way everyone is able to observe their own religious values and no one value is imposed on the other.
 
Last edited:
Peter3785 said:
Set it up like we have for Muslims--give each religion a room to pray in. That way everyone is able to observe their own religious values and no one value is imposed on the other.
Click to expand...

That’s already allowed. Any group of kids that want to pray together outside of class time are free to do so. “Meet me at the flagpole” groups are not uncommon. If a school has a room for Muslims, that’s religious accommodation for required prayer. But places can and are allowed for other religions as well.
 
pinqy said:
That’s already allowed. Any group of kids that want to pray together outside of class time are free to do so. “Meet me at the flagpole” groups are not uncommon. If a school has a room for Muslims, that’s religious accommodation for required prayer. But places can and are allowed for other religions as well.
Click to expand...

Well, the conservatives I've talked to seem to feel that Muslims are being given differential treatment by being allowed their own room to pray in. If each religion were given their own room there would be no need for such religious jealousy. When I was in school I said prayers silently to myself and had no problems but apparently today's Christians think that god can't hear them if they aren't louder than everyone else.
 
Separation of Church and State was there to protect religious freedom from the state, since only the State can make laws, have an army, and control the laws and jails. A Church can organize citizens, make arguments, and appeal to emotions, but that is not the same level of power as having tanks, aircraft carriers, swat teams, prosecutors and judges. I don't understand the position of the left, since they think the 100 pound weakling is a threat to the 200 pound football player.

The Roman Catholic Church; Holy Roman wEmpire, before the 1400's, had an army and could leverage countries. But those days were long gone by the time of Jefferson, three hundred year later. By his time, States were using churches as a political tool; Church of England, because the power of the original Roman church was dissociating and diminishing.

The real perceived problem for the left, is their own moral corruption. A moral POV, from a church with too much clout, would have an adverse impact on their schemes and political orientation. This is why the Democrats, under then Senator Johnson, made a law that said a church could not maintain its tax free status and also be political. The Democrats found it easier to lie and cheat without a trusted referee. It had nothing to do with the church building an army or wanting nuclear weapons so they could take over the reigns of power. It was about moral truth not mixing well with political schemes and scams.

President Trump removed that law that prohibited religions from the political process. One can see some of the impact, already. The swamp is now under moral judgement, which appears to have the most impact on the Democrats. This judgement is starting with sexual misconduct, and will spread from there to other forms of lawlessness and corruption. That was always the real fear of the left. Over the past several decades, they needed a scam that made religion appear to have the army and not just a truthful voice.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Schools DO indoctrinate their students. Secular schools indoctrinate the way people are supposed to act, think and dress, religious schools do the same thing with a twist.

That is one reason home schooling is seen as a threat by most bureaucrats and politicians.
Click to expand...

No it is threatening to some politicians because the home schoolers can spell better in tweets,:lamo
 
wellwisher said:
Separation of Church and State was there to protect religious freedom from the state, since only the State can make laws, have an army, and control the laws and jails. A Church can organize citizens, make arguments, and appeal to emotions, but that is not the same level of power as having tanks, aircraft carriers, swat teams, prosecutors and judges. I don't understand the position of the left, since they think the 100 pound weakling is a threat to the 200 pound football player.

The Roman Catholic Church; Holy Roman wEmpire, before the 1400's, had an army and could leverage countries. But those days were long gone by the time of Jefferson, three hundred year later. By his time, States were using churches as a political tool; Church of England, because the power of the original Roman church was dissociating and diminishing.

The real perceived problem for the left, is their own moral corruption. A moral POV, from a church with too much clout, would have an adverse impact on their schemes and political orientation. This is why the Democrats, under then Senator Johnson, made a law that said a church could not maintain its tax free status and also be political. The Democrats found it easier to lie and cheat without a trusted referee. It had nothing to do with the church building an army or wanting nuclear weapons so they could take over the reigns of power. It was about moral truth not mixing well with political schemes and scams.

President Trump removed that law that prohibited religions from the political process. One can see some of the impact, already. The swamp is now under moral judgement, which appears to have the most impact on the Democrats. This judgement is starting with sexual misconduct, and will spread from there to other forms of lawlessness and corruption. That was always the real fear of the left. Over the past several decades, they needed a scam that made religion appear to have the army and not just a truthful voice.
Click to expand...

When one wishes to use history in support of their personal views, that person is better served when they actually know something about history. The Roman Catholic Church has not had an army since the Fifth Century. The Holy Roman Empire was a separate political entity from its inception and there were often conflicts between the Pope and the Emperor.

Funny that nobody on the right ever suffers from "moral corruption". Why? Because as soon as one of their people is caught acting in an immoral fashion, we will see one of two responses: The first being a "heart-felt" apology for the actions and a public "return to a Christian life". The second one is the "No True Scotsman" - Oh, that guy? He's not really one of us. Please ignore what we said about him last week.

Just which church are you saying is a "trusted referee"? You seem to be one of those who truly believes "Christians are persecuted in America" despite what is actually taking place.

Ending the Johnson Amendment means there will be yet another conduit for dark money to enter the political forum. Always nice when Americans have no idea who is paying for political ads, campaigning and lobbying. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom