Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[rahl]

The first amendment contains no requirement for secular government. It's not there.

You’ve been shown otherwise. Repeatedly. It’s why the courts consistently rule against your position.

 

[weaver2]

The first amendment contains no requirement for secular government. It's not there.

OK if the 1st Amendment doesn't mean the US government is secular, why exactly is the 1st Amendment there and what kind of government is the 1st Amendment establishing. And ...... what exactly does "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" mean to you?

 

[AZRWinger]

Yes, it does. Read the 1st Amendment carefully.

Specification of a secular government isn't in the establishment clause or the free exercise clause. So where is it? Be specific.

The founding fathers made their intent clear. Accept it or move out.

Yes, it is, and it does. Your denial doesn't change that.

WRONG.

Still no quote from the Constitutional text. Your unsupported opinion is unconvincing.

The wanted to make sure religion did not interfere in government as it had in Europe, France, Spain, and other places throughout history.

The Founders fought a war of independence against the English monarch who is also head of the Church of England. The establishment clause prohibits the takeover of religion by government as happened with the COE.

Social justice is not a religion. The religious right can believe what they want. They are not going to force their beliefs on others. The 1st Amendment makes that illegal.

Where's the evidence of the Right forcing religion on others? There is none.

Democrats invoke social justice with religious fervor. Yet, Leftists can just declare any policy they don't like as based in religious belief. Politically based censorship.

Nobody is 2nd guessing the almighty. I said your religion is not the law.

You will not legislate your religion.

Hmm, thou shall not commit murder has already been codified
That's just one example.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Specification of a secular government isn't in the establishment clause or the free exercise clause. So where is it? Be specific.

I already answered this. Read the first Amendment.

Still no quote from the Constitutional text. Your unsupported opinion is unconvincing.

I already answered this. Read the first Amendment.

Your attempt to create a de facto state religion is offensive and unlawful.

The Founders fought a war of independence against the English monarch who is also head of the Church of England. The establishment clause prohibits the takeover of religion by government as happened with the COE.

It also serves to prevent a state religion from being created. That includes right-wing zealots attempting to force their beliefs on the people by making laws based on them.

Your religion is not the law. Accept this fact and move on... or move out.

Where's the evidence of the Right forcing religion on others? There is none.

Yes, there is, and your baseless denials do not change it.

Every law made by the right, based on their religious beliefs, such as laws against abortion, allowing grown men to marry 11-year-old girls, allowing businesses to refused to do business with gay people, denying marriage licenses to gay people, or refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people are good examples.

Your religion is not the law, and it doesn't give you the right to discriminate. If the right cannot do business with everybody, they aren't going to do business with anybody.

Democrats invoke social justice with religious fervor. Yet, Leftists can just declare any policy they don't like as based in religious belief. Politically based censorship.

Social justice is not a religion. That is a bullshit excuse. If the policy is based on your religion, it is in violation of the 1st Amendment. It is inappropriate and needs to be stopped.

Keeping dishonest business scum from discriminating is everybody's responsibility. If the right-wing were honest, they wouldn't have these issues.

Hmm, thou shall not commit murder has already been codified
That's just one example.

Bullshit duck attempt.

 

[Risky Thicket]

This is absolutely wrong. I can quote Jefferson and Madison as proof.


Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1803



Obviously we cannot all have the equal religious and secular rights to believe or not to belie if the state is support belief over non-belief or supporting one religion or sent over the other.

Bingo!

 

[Lisa]

Bingo!

Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is too long to quote but posits 1-11 should be read. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163

Jefferson to Horatio Spafford,

in every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

Horatio G. Spafford | Jefferson Quotes & Family Letters

tjrs.monticello.org

A few thoughts by Thomas Paine on the subject,

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

...It would be more consistent that we call [the Bible] the work of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange believe that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.

Thomas Paine Quotes About Separation Of Church And State | A-Z Quotes

Discover Thomas Paine quotes about separation of church and state. Share with friends. Create amazing picture quotes from Thomas Paine quotations.

www.azquotes.com

Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.


Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Thomas Paine: Age of Reason

Full text of Thomas Paine's --Age of Reason--

www.ushistory.org

 

[AZRWinger]

OK if the 1st Amendment doesn't mean the US government is secular, why exactly is the 1st Amendment there and what kind of government is the 1st Amendment establishing. And ...... what exactly does "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" mean to you?

It means what is written. There can be no state religion like the Church of England.

I already answered this. Read the first Amendment.

I already answered this. Read the first Amendment.

Your attempt to create a de facto state religion is offensive and unlawful.

It also serves to prevent a state religion from being created. That includes right-wing zealots attempting to force their beliefs on the people by making laws based on them.

Your religion is not the law. Accept this fact and move on... or move out.


Yes, there is, and your baseless denials do not change it.

Every law made by the right, based on their religious beliefs, such as laws against abortion, allowing grown men to marry 11-year-old girls, allowing businesses to refused to do business with gay people, denying marriage licenses to gay people, or refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people are good examples.

Your religion is not the law, and it doesn't give you the right to discriminate. If the right cannot do business with everybody, they aren't going to do business with anybody.




Social justice is not a religion. That is a bullshit excuse. If the policy is based on your religion, it is in violation of the 1st Amendment. It is inappropriate and needs to be stopped.

Keeping dishonest business scum from discriminating is everybody's responsibility. If the right-wing were honest, they wouldn't have these issues.



Bullshit duck attempt.

Unable to show where the First Amendment or any other text in the Constitution specifies a secular government you simply repeat the command to read the first amendment. No attempt at discussion, ignore the words as written and unreasoned condemnation. Typical Democrat.

 

[Lisa]

It means what is written. There can be no state religion like the Church of England.

It goes much farther than that. The government is to be secular and every person has guaranteed religious rights to believe and worship as we choose to do or not to do. Can other religions force their beliefs on you by the power of the state? What is the downside to having a secular government?

Unable to show where the First Amendment or any other text in the Constitution specifies a secular government you simply repeat the command to read the first amendment. No attempt at discussion, ignore the words as written and unreasoned condemnation. Typical Democrat.

The words of the Framers make this idea very clear but you want to play a literalist game that was never intended.

 

[anatta]

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but the First makes ir clear government cannot establish/favor a religion
Nor can the government disfavor religious practice as an individual in government, nor as a citizen
But individual practice cannot overcome a compelling government need either

Neutrality towards religion s the goal

 

[ColdHardTruth]

It means what is written. There can be no state religion like the Church of England.

Unable to show where the First Amendment or any other text in the Constitution specifies a secular government you simply repeat the command to read the first amendment. No attempt at discussion, ignore the words as written and unreasoned condemnation. Typical Democrat.

I have explained this to you a number of times. You're ducking. Your religion is NOT the law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The underlined section specifically forbids a state religion, which means, the country is meant to be secular. Your religion is not the law. Believe what you want, but your religion ends where the government begins. The two were never meant to mix.

 

[weaver2]

It means what is written. There can be no state religion like the Church of England.

Or like the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist or the Pillar of Fire Church or the mega church of MAGA and nothing evangelical.

Unable to show where the First Amendment or any other text in the Constitution specifies a secular government you simply repeat the command to read the first amendment. No attempt at discussion, ignore the words as written and unreasoned condemnation. Typical Democrat.

Can't answer simple questions like "What does the phrase 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion'" mean to you? Typical conservative.

 

[weaver2]

Specification of a secular government isn't in the establishment clause or the free exercise clause. So where is it? Be specific.

Language is subtle. You will never willingly understand them.

The Founders fought a war of independence against the English monarch who is also head of the Church of England. The establishment clause prohibits the takeover of religion by government as happened with the COE.

The Church of England never took over the governing of England and its empire. The Catholic Church tried and what happened to it was a lesson well learned by the Church of England.

Where's the evidence of the Right forcing religion on others? There is none.

Conservative religion was instrumental in:
changing our national motto from e Pluribus Unum to In God We Trust
getting coerced prayer and bible reading into schools
Inserting "under God" into the pledge.
all the Blue laws
many of the anti-immigrant laws
overturning Roe
continual whining about Christmas

Democrats invoke social justice with religious fervor.

If I were you I wouldn't drag the word fervor into the conversation.

Yet, Leftists can just declare any policy they don't like as based in religious belief. Politically based censorship.

Which policy are you referencing?

Hmm, thou shall not commit murder has already been codified
That's just one example.

Murder was defined and codified by the ethics of Hammurabi not by the Ten Commandments

 

[blueskies2018]

^^^ I agree.

When I was in school my homeroom was in the biology lab. We sat around huge lab tables. The morning announcements and the morning prayer were presented over the intercom. During the prayer everyone bowed their head and closed their eyes. Sitting across the table from me was the most beautiful girl my 9th grade self had ever seen. She was Jewish, Rena.

Your school was doing prayer? That’s weird.

During the prayer I took the opportunity to stare a Rena while her head was bowed. Until one day she looked up and caught my stare. I

Stupid me. Why would Rena listen to the morning prayer? Why would Catholics listen? I didn't. I have no idea how many kids in my homeroom were uninterested in the daily protestant prayer. I had never thought about it until I wondered how alienated or even offended Rena might have been. This happened at a time when I decided to become unchurched as soon as my parents allowed it. Later, I decided I that I was nonaffiliated. Nothing for and nothing against.

Forced religious practice in publicly funded schools is wrong on all levels. In today's climate it is easy to see religion in government separates people, the opposite of what most religions say they want.

I'm fine with teachers and staff wearing a religious symbol. Kids are observant. Let the actions of the teachers and staff speak for their faith.



As a Buddhist the 10 Commandments don't offend me. In my experience most Christians don't pay that much attention to them unless they fill the need to justify an action or to exert control. The 10 C should never be permitted in public buildings or government activities.

I assume most judges have religious beliefs of some kind. No problem as long as the remain unbiased. But putting the 10 C in a courtroom is absolutely unnecessary and wrong.

I don’t think there’s any need for anyone to bring up their religion or political views in their professional setting. The hard part is that our morality comes from somewhere. One of the Ten Commandments is don’t kill and we have a law against killing. I’m not saying that allows anyone to bring religion into the mix, I’m just saying I see how it gets a little “hairy”.

If a place of worship espouses a political position that place of worship should no longer remain tax exempt.

People do not want government controlling their religions. They should not want religion controlling their government.

 

[AZRWinger]

It goes much farther than that. The government is to be secular and every person has guaranteed religious rights to believe and worship as we choose to do or not to do. Can other religions force their beliefs on you by the power of the state? What is the downside to having a secular government?

You claim the Constitution goes much further than the plain wording of the establishment clause but provide no evidence of a specification for a secular government.

Kindly cite the quote where I have suggested the government ought to compell Christian or any other religious belief. Secular Progressives insist atheism act as the state religion banning Christian religious symbols or public affirmations of the faith as coercive.

The downside to having an exclusively secular athiest government is there is no limit to government power.

The words of the Framers make this idea very clear but you want to play a literalist game that was never intended.

The Constitution has detailed requirements for its amendment. Nowhere are the "words of the Framers" mentioned nor interpretation of intent. Intent is the Democrat blowtorch for burning down the Republic. Prominent Democrat politicians are immune from prosecution due to intent or a lack thereof. Now, the claim is the Constitution is subject to ad hoc amendment based on intent.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

You claim the Constitution goes much further than the plain wording of the establishment clause but provide no evidence of a specification for a secular government.

This has been explained to you on multiple occasions. Read the 1st Amendment.

Kindly cite the quote where I have suggested the government ought to compell Christian or any other religious belief. Secular Progressives insist atheism act as the state religion banning Christian religious symbols or public affirmations of the faith as coercive.

You posted a section on your idea that there is nothing wrong with religion influencing law. You are wrong. The US is a secular state and were going to stay that way.

The downside to having an exclusively secular athiest government is there is no limit to government power.

Not wanting religion in government does not make us atheist. It just means, your religion stays out of the law.

The Constitution has detailed requirements for its amendment. Nowhere are the "words of the Framers" mentioned nor interpretation of intent. Intent is the Democrat blowtorch for burning down the Republic. Prominent Democrat politicians are immune from prosecution due to intent or a lack thereof. Now, the claim is the Constitution is subject to ad hoc amendment based on intent.

WRONG as usual.

Read the 1st Amendment.

The founding fathers spoke on this, and I have posted this information to you on many occasions.

 

[acco40]

Look at the history of Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the 1950s and her battle with the separation of church and state.

Our original Pledge of Allegiance had no mention of God. That was added as an anti- communism trope on June 14, 1954 (signed by Eisenhower).

In God We Trust was added to our coinage in 1864. FYI, that was left off a few quarters in 2007 and they are worth around $50 now. Again, thanks to Eisenhower, it was mandated to appear on all coins and currency in 1954 - again to differentiate us from communism (the current bogeyman much like immigrants now).

These actions are supported by about 85% of the populace and the courts have reiterated the concept of "ceremonial deism" which allows the government to endorse religious establishments as long as they are all treated equally.

 

[Lisa]

You claim the Constitution goes much further than the plain wording of the establishment clause but provide no evidence of a specification for a secular government.

Kindly cite the quote where I have suggested the government ought to compell Christian or any other religious belief. Secular Progressives insist atheism act as the state religion banning Christian religious symbols or public affirmations of the faith as coercive.\

Nobody said atheism is the state religion. That would be a violation of the free exercise clause. The state is the secular/neutral on religious belief and lack there of for the protections of the religious rights of all citizens. Keeping the state free of religion does not ban religious symbols in public, as long as they are kept to private property where they are then constitutionally protected. The separation of church and state applies to the government at all levels(federal, state, local and county), laws and the enforcement of such, and all expenditures of taxpayer dollars. Every citizen who is not a state actor and state actions on their private time have the same religious rights to believe or not to believe and to worship as they see fit. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Would you rather that people of other religious/sects when they are a state actors can force to you obey their religious beliefs via the power of the state?

The downside to having an exclusively secular athiest government is there is no limit to government power.

That is also wrong.

The Constitution has detailed requirements for its amendment. Nowhere are the "words of the Framers" mentioned nor interpretation of intent. Intent is the Democrat blowtorch for burning down the Republic. Prominent Democrat politicians are immune from prosecution due to intent or a lack thereof. Now, the claim is the Constitution is subject to ad hoc amendment based on intent.

Perscution complex much?

 

[Lisa]

Look at the history of Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the 1950s and her battle with the separation of church and state.

Our original Pledge of Allegiance had no mention of God. That was added as an anti- communism trope on June 14, 1954 (signed by Eisenhower).

In God We Trust was added to our coinage in 1864. FYI, that was left off a few quarters in 2007 and they are worth around $50 now. Again, thanks to Eisenhower, it was mandated to appear on all coins and currency in 1954 - again to differentiate us from communism (the current bogeyman much like immigrants now).

These actions are supported by about 85% of the populace and the courts have reiterated the concept of "ceremonial deism" which allows the government to endorse religious establishments as long as they are all treated equally.

But obviously all religions and lack thereof arent all treated equally with (orthodox) Christianity.

 

[acco40]

But obviously all religions and lack thereof arent all treated equally with (orthodox) Christianity.

Obviously? Look at most public schools these days. For most, Frosty and Rudolph reign supreme around December 25th, not Jesus Christ. Decorations include pine trees and snowmen not mangers. School prayer has gone by the wayside for the most part. These changes are good IMHO. I live in southeast Michigan - we probably have the highest concentration of Muslims per capita in the US (as well as Chaldeans - Christians). Our area high schools are very accommodating to Muslim high school athletes observing Ramadan (a month long celebration that includes fasting from sunrise to sunset) and various garments worn by some at school (hijab, mantilla, apostolnik, wimple, dupatta, shayla, niqab, etc.) worn by various religions.

But yes, "spring break" usually includes the (Catholic) Easter and Good Friday and not necessarily Orthodox Easter. We still refer to "Christmas break" although most schools have gone away from that nomenclature (Winter Break) but have not necessarily deviated from the timing.

So by and large while not necessarily "equal" (what really is?) we have as a society gravitated toward religious equality including atheist and agnostic beliefs.

 

[AZRWinger]

Nobody said atheism is the state religion. That would be a violation of the free exercise clause. The state is the secular/neutral on religious belief and lack there of for the protections of the religious rights of all citizens. Keeping the state free of religion does not ban religious symbols in public, as long as they are kept to private property where they are then constitutionally protected. The separation of church and state applies to the government at all levels(federal, state, local and county), laws and the enforcement of such, and all expenditures of taxpayer dollars. Every citizen who is not a state actor and state actions on their private time have the same religious rights to believe or not to believe and to worship as they see fit. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that purging religious expression from the public square promotes atheism as the state religion? It goes much further than simply stripping religious symbols from public property. Radical Leftists continue their so-called public accommodation campaign to force violation of religious beliefs in every aspect of public life. Look at the persecution of Masterpiece cakes for refusing to participate in homosexual weddings.

Would you rather that people of other religious/sects when they are a state actors can force to you obey their religious beliefs via the power of the state?

Laws against murder and theft have deep religious roots. Recognition of religious beliefs informing political policy used to be assumed. But that offended delicate athiest sensibilities so now it must be purged from public expression.

That is also wrong.

Not a single word about the issue.

Perscution complex much?

Right, ignoring the Left wing campaign against religion will make it go away.

 

[Gordy327]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that purging religious expression from the public square promotes atheism as the state religion?

It doesn't. And religion isn't being purged. People are still free to believe and practice their religion. When people get arrested for that, then you might have a valid argument.

It goes much further than simply stripping religious symbols from public property. Radical Leftists continue their so-called public accommodation campaign to force violation of religious beliefs in every aspect of public life. Look at the persecution of Masterpiece cakes for refusing to participate in homosexual weddings.

Paranoid persecution complex.

Laws against murder and theft have deep religious roots. Recognition of religious beliefs informing political policy used to be assumed. But that offended delicate athiest sensibilities so now it must be purged from public expression.

Such laws are not unique or exclusive to religion. If anything, murder has historically been negotiable in religion.

Right, ignoring the Left wing campaign against religion will make it go away.

What "campaign?" Such paranoia.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that purging religious expression from the public square promotes atheism as the state religion? It goes much further than simply stripping religious symbols from public property. Radical Leftists continue their so-called public accommodation campaign to force violation of religious beliefs in every aspect of public life. Look at the persecution of Masterpiece cakes for refusing to participate in homosexual weddings.

Nonsensical bullshit.

A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen based on their religious beliefs, affiliation or lack of either over those with other profiles


Nobody is purging religious expressionism. We are keeping religion out of state government.

Masterpeice Cakes tried to force his religious beliefs on other people. The Catholic cabal on the SCOTUS let him get away with that.

Your religion is not the law and it doesn't belong in the law.

Laws against murder and theft have deep religious roots. Recognition of religious beliefs informing political policy used to be assumed. But that offended delicate athiest sensibilities so now it must be purged from public expression.

These came from the code of Hammurabi.

Not a single word about the issue.

Right, ignoring the Left wing campaign against religion will make it go away.

It's not a campaign against religion. It's a fight to keep your religion out of our government.

It means what is written. There can be no state religion like the Church of England.

It also means there can be no state religion. When the right creates laws based on their religion they are creating a de facto state religion. That is a 1st Amendment violation.

Unable to show where the First Amendment or any other text in the Constitution specifies a secular government you simply repeat the command to read the first amendment. No attempt at discussion, ignore the words as written and unreasoned condemnation. Typical Democrat.

This has been posted for your many times.

Stop ducking.