• 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!

Seperation of Church and state

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Why is this even a question , it was answered completely by the writers and signers of the Declaration of independents and writers and signers of the constitution. Couldn't be made more clear, Simply look at the 11 amendment of this countries first treaty , The treaty of Tripoly. I believe in 1779. Supported and signed by 100% of the congress and made into law with writers and signers of both the Declaration of independents and constitution.
Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
 
Why is this even a question , it was answered completely by the writers and signers of the Declaration of independents and writers and signers of the constitution. Couldn't be made more clear, Simply look at the 11 amendment of this countries first treaty , The treaty of Tripoly. I believe in 1779. Supported and signed by 100% of the congress and made into law with writers and signers of both the Declaration of independents and constitution.
Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The treaty of Tripoli is not binding law upon domestic affairs within the United States.
 
The treaty of Tripoli is not binding law upon domestic affairs within the United States.

You are correct, but there's a bit more here.

Basically, the First Amendment does two things for religion. First, it insists that the government cannot infringe on anyone's right to worship. Second, the government cannot endorse any religion as a state religion.

The phrase, "separation for church and state" is NOT in the Constitution...but is a policy that Jefferson followed that was based on the logic of the First Amendment as an answer to the letters sent to him by the Danbury Baptists. In essence, the Baptists in Connecticut were a smaller Christian church that were outvoted in the state legislature at every turn. They wrote to Jefferson to ask him to use his office and the power of the government to even it out. Jefferson refused, using the First Amendment as the reason and in his reply used the phrase "separation of church and state". So, while those who would argue that the US is a "Christian nation" and like to point out that the phrase is not in the Constitution, their argument fails when you take into account that the phrase is simply policy based on the First Amendment, therefore, applicable. Speaking about the "Christian nation" idea....

Let's make a couple of facts clear. Most Americans, at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were adopted, practiced one form of Christianity or another. Also, at that time, there were almost no Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Also, the number of Muslims were also almost non-existing, save for a small group of slaves bought from Northern Africa. Having said that....

While many of the Founders and Framers were Christians, many were also deists. People who believed in a more natural, non-involved greater being. Almost all of the Founders and Framers also had very good education for their times. Their education was steeped in Greco-Roman history, engineering, mathematics, law and philosophy (of all types). Did many of these Founders and Framers attend church? Yes, the did. Did they pray at Congress and before the sessions when hammering out the Bill of Rights and Constitution. More often than not, yes. Doesn't that make the US a "Christian nation"? No, and here's why....

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

If we were to define the US as a "Christian nation" due to the numbers only; then yes, we would be a "Christian nation". But that's not the real definition that is being used today to argue that we are a "Christian nation". The argument is that we are such a nation because out laws are based on Christian morality and ethos. But it isn't. Because if it were, then there would be a religion endorsed by the government and the First Amendment would not exist.

Remember a few things here. First, there was no threat of a non-Christian religion at that time. No Sharia law threats, nothing. So, why did we need to pass an Amendment that both protected the worship but prevented the endorsement of religion by the government? What was the point of that? The answer is simple...

The Founders and Framers feared Christianity would impede on the freedoms of the citizens. And the Danbury letters proved them right.

Christianity has many different sects. And some sects bear great animosity towards others; there was a one year war in the then colony of Maryland between the Protestants and Catholics. The Danbury Baptists were looking to gain power over a larger sect by using governmental power. This is EXACTLY what the Founders and Framers did NOT want! They also remembered how in Britain and as colonies that if you did not belong to the Church of England, a Christian sect, it was legal to discriminate against you.

In other words, the point of the First Amendment, if you want to talk about specific religions and the Constitution and Bill of Rights, was to counter the ability of Christianity, no matter the sect, to influence and control government.
 
Why is this even a question , it was answered completely by the writers and signers of the Declaration of independents and writers and signers of the constitution. Couldn't be made more clear, Simply look at the 11 amendment of this countries first treaty , The treaty of Tripoly. I believe in 1779. Supported and signed by 100% of the congress and made into law with writers and signers of both the Declaration of independents and constitution.
Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

OK, then explain the establishment of Christmas (Christ's mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?).
 
OK, then explain the establishment of Christmas (Christ's mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?).

The Government has to promote the general welfare, with Christmas one of the most powerful holidays for doing so. It has a huge impact on the GNP as well as a broad based cultural induction of good will toward each other. Government took take the best, from all the ingredients in the melting pot. The atheist would have taken a Scrooge approach, just so religion is never paced in a good light. They are an insecure religion.
 
The Government has to promote the general welfare, with Christmas one of the most powerful holidays for doing so. It has a huge impact on the GNP as well as a broad based cultural induction of good will toward each other. Government took take the best, from all the ingredients in the melting pot. The atheist would have taken a Scrooge approach, just so religion is never paced in a good light. They are an insecure religion.

That is a very weak excuse for singling out one relgious group for special treatment (having their God treated as a national hero?). There are now four (of ten) federal holidays celebrated for individuals: Jesus Christ, George Washington (sometimes called president's day), Martin Luther King Jr. (replacing Abraham Lincoln?) and Christopher Columbus (who never set foot on US soil).
 
Last edited:
OK, then explain the establishment of Christmas (Christ's mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?).

perhaps we should drop Christmas as a federal holiday then
 
Dropping it would not be necessary - simply renaming it (perhaps as gifting day?) would suffice.

sure. I am fine with that. Religious people can celebrate their version of Christmas, nonreligious can celebrate their holiday, whatever they want to call it, even if its still called Christmas.
 
OK, then explain the establishment of Christmas (Christ's mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?).
Mainly numbers. If you already are going to have well over 50% of the population taking the day off, why not simply declare it a national holiday?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Mainly numbers. If you already are going to have well over 50% of the population taking the day off, why not simply declare it a national holiday?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Over 50% of the population takes two days off every week - why not declare them holidays? ;)
 
Over 50% of the population takes two days off every week - why not declare them holidays? ;)

Then some religious groups would claim discrimination because Friday isn't also a holiday ... wait

Lets do this!
 
Over 50% of the population takes two days off every week - why not declare them holidays? ;)
Not the same day, for the same reason. Even many nonChristians would take off Christmas just because of tradition or having Christian relatives. 50% is a low estimate. And I'm pretty sure 50% of workers do not take off their schedules work days.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
The treaty of Tripoli is not binding law upon domestic affairs within the United States.
Bull**** , all treaty's become law the day they are ratified.
 
Lets try to get back on Topic , your more then welcome to start your own conversation on another thread
Why is this even a question , it was answered completely by the writers and signers of the Declaration of independents and writers and signers of the constitution. Couldn't be made more clear, Simply look at the 11 amendment of this countries first treaty , The treaty of Tripoly. I believe in 1779. Supported and signed by 100% of the congress and made into law with writers and signers of both the Declaration of independents and constitution.
Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
 
Dropping it would not be necessary - simply renaming it (perhaps as gifting day?) would suffice.

Well no, I think dropping it would be better. It's not a legitimate reason for a national holiday, being based on religion.

Why keep it at all? Christians are still as free to celebrate it as before and would just need to manage their vacation time differently if they needed to.

I realize the reason may be 'economics' but then it's hypocritical...we should now have a day where we all spend 6 weeks spending to celebrate..."the spending?"
 
OK, then explain the establishment of Christmas (Christ's mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?).
Oh my this totally shoots down my comment. WOW WOW WOW!
 
I read parts of a book whose purpose was to correct false myths about Thomas Jefferson.

One such myth was that TJ was not a Christian. The author readily admitted that TJ renounced the deity of Jesus, he was not the immortal son of God, never claimed to be, according to TJ.

TJ called himself a Christian. He has that right. So does an Israelite, muslim, or atheist.

The purpose of the Apostles Creed was to weed out the pretenders from the "true Christians".
By their own standards, the Christian churches require belief in the points of the Creed, or be considered a heretic.
By the standards of the Christian church, TJ was a heretic, not a Christian. So were many other presidents, and founding fathers.
That has become an inconvenient truth, so it is denied.
 
The treaty of Tripoli is not binding law upon domestic affairs within the United States.
Bull**** all treaty's once signed by all party's is law . You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
The treaty of Tripoli is not binding law upon domestic affairs within the United States.
"The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once it is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause."
 
Why is this even a question , it was answered completely by the writers and signers of the Declaration of independents and writers and signers of the constitution. Couldn't be made more clear, Simply look at the 11 amendment of this countries first treaty , The treaty of Tripoly. I believe in 1779. Supported and signed by 100% of the congress and made into law with writers and signers of both the Declaration of independents and constitution.
Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Proper interpretation of the Constitution: Congress shall not pass laws which deny American's rights to honor their religious convictions.

Democrat interpretation of the Constitution: Congress shall make every law necessary to force Christians to keep their religion out of public view and discourse.
 
Bull**** all treaty's once signed by all party's is law . You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

No, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Reid v Covert. Agreements with foreign governments have no bearing on constitutional law.
 
No, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Reid v Covert. Agreements with foreign governments have no bearing on constitutional law.
NOPE! "Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that U.S. citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by U.S. military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury. Additionally, a plurality of the Court also reaffirmed the president’s ability to enter into international executive agreements, though it held that such agreements cannot contradict federal law or the Constitution. " a presidential agreement is not a treaty.
 
No, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Reid v Covert. Agreements with foreign governments have no bearing on constitutional law.
Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls "the supreme Law of the Land."
 
Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls "the supreme Law of the Land."

Federal legislation is not the supreme law of the land, the constitution is. Someone needs to go back to school
 
Back
Top Bottom