• 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"

...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"....

The USSC had ruled against this.

When a state has tried to ban gun, the USSC has declared such a ban "unconstitutional".

The US Constitution applies to all people in the USA, regardless of which state they live in.
 
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".
The same can be said about anything in the BoR and not much about your understanding of the Constitution.
 
The USSC had ruled against this.

When a state has tried to ban gun, the USSC has declared such a ban "unconstitutional".

The US Constitution applies to all people in the USA, regardless of which state they live in.

Wow, something we agree on regarding the 2nd amendment.
 
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.
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries. James Madison
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/james_madison
 
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries. James Madison
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/james_madison

By the time of the writing of the Constitution, the only organizations who had large organized and equipped armies to fight and spill blood, was the State, not the Church. The Roman Catholic Church once controlled the states of Europe, from about 400 AD to about 1500AD. Europe was once unified like the Euro-dream of today. The Church had organized Europe, with blood mostly spilled via state politics and the Middle East.

When the Catholic Church started to divide, around 1500, i.e., Martin Luther, States started to control their own Churches. This transition to state run religion times out with the age of exploration, as nearly all the European nations staked claims in the new World, and had new money to build and support armies.

The Pilgrims left England to avoid the State run Religion of the King of England. Over a 100 yeas later, the Constitution was written to evolve the State and Religion away from the big centralized entity of the original Church, was well as state run political church and give the church to the people. The people do not own armies, nor can they tax, make and/or enforce laws, without going through a long winded Democratic process.

The left wants the State to regain control of religion so they can control people and start conflicts. This is regressive to the stages of church evolution, since individual pursuit is the ideal; inner voice instead of mass mind mob.

Picture if the left, using the political dirty tricks of its leadership and fake news CNN, had control over the Church. Then could expand their angry hate mob into a religious war, backed by scriptures, that would justify spilling blood. Because the Church remains separate, a second opinion is available, that can transcend the sickness. This is what the Madison saw as the solution to the wars within the once unified Europe. The left tries to neutralized the second opinion.
 
Last edited:
By the time of the writing of the Constitution, the only organizations who had large organized and equipped armies to fight and spill blood, was the State, not the Church. The Roman Catholic Church once controlled the states of Europe, from about 400 AD to about 1500AD. Europe was once unified like the Euro-dream of today. The Church had organized Europe, with blood mostly spilled via state politics and the Middle East.

When the Catholic Church started to divide, around 1500, i.e., Martin Luther, States started to control their own Churches. This transition to state run religion times out with the age of exploration, as nearly all the European nations staked claims in the new World, and had new money to build and support armies.

The Pilgrims left England to avoid the State run Religion of the King of England. Over a 100 yeas later, the Constitution was written to evolve the State and Religion away from the big centralized entity of the original Church, was well as state run political church and give the church to the people. The people do not own armies, nor can they tax, make and/or enforce laws, without going through a long winded Democratic process.

The left wants the State to regain control of religion so they can control people and start conflicts. This is regressive to the stages of church evolution, since individual pursuit is the ideal; inner voice instead of mass mind mob.

Picture if the left, using the political dirty tricks of its leadership and fake news CNN, had control over the Church. Then could expand their angry hate mob into a religious war, backed by scriptures, that would justify spilling blood. Because the Church remains separate, a second opinion is available, that can transcend the sickness. This is what the Madison saw as the solution to the wars within the once unified Europe. The left tries to neutralized the second opinion.

the '' pilgrims'' werent called that until they decided to rewrite their history. they were separatists. for some reason people always mention the mayflower. it was one ship among many from england. and eastern europe. It was going to northern va. but was put off course by a storm.
 
the '' pilgrims'' werent called that until they decided to rewrite their history. they were separatists. for some reason people always mention the mayflower. it was one ship among many from england. and eastern europe. It was going to northern va. but was put off course by a storm.

western europe not eastern
 
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.

Today we need the state to promote religious values since liberals have killed off the church. Our Founders assumed a deeply religious and moral culture. Now that liberals have killed that off, the state must fill the gap.
 
Today we need the state to promote religious values since liberals have killed off the church. Our Founders assumed a deeply religious and moral culture. Now that liberals have killed that off, the state must fill the gap.

WHICH religious values should be promoted by the state?

  • And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
  • If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
  • But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
 
WHICH religious values should be promoted by the state?

The basic Christian commandment is love thy neighbor as thy self. Do you understand?
 
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

yes, Madison understood that by separating church and state we would have more religion rather than less! Do you understand this?
 
yes, Madison understood that by separating church and state we would have more religion rather than less! Do you understand this?

Interesting. When I read your words, I do wonder where you found the concepts, ideas and bad history that you continue to post because they have little to no support in reality. Do you understand that you need education?
 
The basic Christian commandment is love thy neighbor as thy self. Do you understand?

the churches cant be counted on to understand that hence the need for keeping them out of the government many christians seem to be fond of making exceptions to the golden rule as soon as it conflicts with any other directive of their faith

you can see it form the conflicts christians have had with those not of their faith to the one they have had over schisms within christianity up to religious objections to gay marriage and immigration
 
Today we need the state to promote religious values since liberals have killed off the church. Our Founders assumed a deeply religious and moral culture. Now that liberals have killed that off, the state must fill the gap.

So now conservatives are statist? You lot make no sense.

We need zero religion. It is shackles of the mind that poisons the populace.

Liberals have not killed off religion. Science has slain that old dragon and technology has sealed the tomb.

Our founders were DEIST, not theist. You best learn the difference before you spew nonsense.
 
The basic Christian commandment is love thy neighbor as thy self. Do you understand?

Which is an intelectual theft of property from The articles of Confucius. If there is one thing christianity has done well, it's convinced the unthinking masses that critical thinking is anathema to God's holy will, and also, with that evisceration of their mental capacity, that they indeed founded these moralistic ventures hich have evidence that proves their existence before the creation of Judeo-Christian Yahweh.

At the end of all things the church is a hollow, corrupt, cultural appropriator, essentially.
 
If there is one thing christianity has done well, it's convinced the unthinking masses that critical thinking is anathema to God's holy will, .

the exact opposite actually. Jesus left very little behind, the entire religion had to be formed and reformed throughout history. Its subject to constant revision and recreations. Ever heard of the Reformation, for example?? Ever see The School of Athens fresco at the Vatican it shows all of history's great thinkers with the church trying to reconcile them all. Learning basics is so much fun isn't it??
 
So now conservatives are statist? You lot make no sense.
.

Conservatives are statists about some basic principles like murder and basic values. Do you understand?
 
We need zero religion. It is shackles of the mind that poisons the populace.

totally naive of course. Without religion life has no meaning or hope. This is why we have so many deaths of despair, school shootings etc. Do you like that??
 
Our founders were DEIST, not theist. You best learn the difference before you spew nonsense.

they were deeply religions and all of our great Ivy League universities were religious!

Madison:
I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; & I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.

In these two letters, Mr. Madison clearly expresses his belief in a Heaven that men must strive to enter as well as his desire for politicians to be fervent advocates of Christianity. These cannot possibly be the words of a deist who was opposed to any and all intermingling of government and religion. Such advice could only have come from a man who genuinely thought the religion of Christ to be superior to all others, and our current politicians would do well to heed his advice.
 
Back
Top Bottom