Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[jmotivator]

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


Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1803

And Jefferson agrees with my statement and you and many others continue to misread Jefferson's statement.

He opposed the establishment of a state religion, not the free expression of religion as a government official. Jefferson also stated that his moral philosophy, on which the founding documents relied, were heavily influenced by the Philosophies of Jesus.

The modern interpretation of Jefferson's "church and state" letter would have those interpreters demanding Jefferson's philosophy not be allowed in government documents.

 

[Opossum]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

It's already well beyond/twisted from what it was supposed to be.

 

[Gordy327]

As long

No one is doing that.

As no one is pushing religion into government or expecting the government to validate religion, then there's no problem.

 

[Uriah]

As long
As no one is pushing religion into government or expecting the government to validate religion, then there's no problem.

Agree.

 

[JRTurner]

Yes! I remember when I was the executive director of a non-profit and we changed our logo. OMG! Our old one was from the 40s and auditing the entire state-wide company for the elimination of the old logo and integration of the new one was a PITA!

We need, as a people, to agree that your religion can be expressed any way you wish--but not on my body, in the buildings I visit, in my public spaces, or within the bounds of my company or home.

Then, we need to audit our public spaces and buildings for anything religion based--swap it out for framed copies of our constitution, or hang our flag, or some other emblem of their state or city. Just keep it of ALL the people, by all the people, FOR all the people--and we'll be good

That, I think, will allow all of us to have freedom OF religion everywhere we go

P.S. For many years I was Mormon (and no, not the bigamy sect) and remain a prayerful Christian today.

 

[Lisa]

And Jefferson agrees with my statement and you and many others continue to misread Jefferson's statement.

He opposed the establishment of a state religion, not the free expression of religion as a government official. Jefferson also stated that his moral philosophy, on which the founding documents relied, were heavily influenced by the Philosophies of Jesus.

Jefferson was not an orthodox Christian. He rewrote the bible to remove all evidence of Jesus being the divine son of god. He also later said that theistic religious belief in a god/s was not logical.

There are two religious clauses that are complimentary. The separation of church and state and the free exercise clause. We have the right to believe and worship or not to worship as we voluntarily choose. to do We do not have the right to deny others equal religious or secular rights. Your religious rights only apply to you. They are not to be part of government, not to be supported by taxpayer dollars or forced others to obey them, unless other religions or atheist can do the very same to you.

The modern interpretation of Jefferson's "church and state" letter would have those interpreters demanding Jefferson's philosophy not be allowed in government documents.

That is demonstrably wrong. We are a secular country and religion is to be a private matter.

Thiomas Jefferons,

“Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free.” Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words “Jesus Christ” for “Almighty God” in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia’s representatives wanted the law “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

What Jefferson really thought about Islam.

It was quite witty of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to short-circuit the hostility of those who criticized him for taking his oath on the Quran and to...

slate.com

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding...​

​

{Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823}”​

A quote from Letters of Thomas Jefferson

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of...

www.goodreads.com

 

[Lisa]

Problem is secular Democrats are marching towards any Christian public religious.expression as forcing religious views on others.

Here is the text of the Establishment Clause.

Amendment I​

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where in the text is the specification for separation of church and state? Nowhere.

If your going to cite SCOTUS declarations creating the so-called wall of separation kindly provide the Constitutional text enabling the SCOTUS to amend the Constitution.

The definition of those ideas are in the writings of Jefferson and Madison who wrote the First Amendment. Don't try to play with literalist textural games with me.

 

[jmotivator]

Jesus was not an orthodox christian. He rewrote the bible to remove all evidence of Jesus being the divine son of god. He also later said that theistic religious belief in a god/s was not logical.

A Christian whose beliefs inform their position on policy doesn't require the divinity of Jesus to be proven. As I said, Jefferson incorporated the biblical morality of Jesus into his own political philosophy without the assertion of divine Christian mandate.

He was, however, a Deist, and therefor pinned the argument for unalienable rights, a position he derived partly from the biblical morality of Jesus, on the existence of a higher power/creator.

There are two religious clauses that are complimentary. The separation of church and state and the free exercise clause.

The "separation of state" isn't a clause. It doesn't exist in the constitution. There is the "Establish" clause and the "free expression" clause. And yes, they are complimentary, the state can establish no state religion, and can not abridge the free expression of religion.

You folks have twisted into a mental pretzel in asserting that the establishment clause forbids the free expression of religion.

We have the right to believe and worship or not to worship as we voluntarily choose. to do We do not have the right to deny others equal religious or secular rights. Your religious rights only apply to you. They are not to be part of government, not to be support by taxpayer dollars or forced others to obey them, unless other religions or atheist can do the very same to you.

That is wrong. religion is a private matter.

Except when the moral code informs much of the founding principles. The founders worried that the new government would establish a state religion with compulsory membership much like the countries and state churches that the majority of colonists fled. None of them assumed that the government should be devoid of religiosity, not the least f whom Jefferson himself:

 

[Lisa]

A Christian whose beliefs inform their position on policy doesn't require the divinity of Jesus to be proven. As I said, Jefferson incorporated the biblical morality of Jesus into his own political philosophy without the assertion of divine Christian mandate.

He was, however, a Deist, and therefor pinned the argument for unalienable rights, a position he derived partly from the biblical morality of Jesus, on the existence of a higher power/creator.


The "separation of state" isn't a clause. It doesn't exist in the constitution. There is the "Establish" clause and the "free expression" clause. And yes, they are complimentary, the state can establish no state religion, and can not abridge the free expression of religion.

You folks have twisted into a mental pretzel in asserting that the establishment clause forbids the free expression of religion.

I never once said the establishment Clause forbids the free expression of religion. It doesn't. It does however keep the actions of the government at all levels absolutely secular. The actions of the government and a civil servant are not to be religious.

Except when the moral code informs much of the founding principles. The founders worried that the new government would establish a state religion with compulsory membership much like the countries and state churches that the majority of colonists fled. None of them assumed that the government should be devoid of religiosity, not the least f whom Jefferson himself:

View attachment 67501468

 

[Lisa]

@jmotivator ,
Jefferson was very clear that the government was to be secular. There is no reason, benefit, or need for religious belief in the actions of government. Doing so would be a violation of the religious beliefs of everyone else and create a very dangerous precedent because all religions and non-belief must be treated absolutely equally by the government.

Even if it was just the Christian religion in government there would be 50+ sects of Catholics and protestants vying for political control and that would invariably end up in a very bloody religious war of purity that happened in Europe at the of the the writing of the US Constitution, so the framers put in place protections to prevent it from happening here, while at the same time guaranteeing equal religious rights to believe or not to believe as an individual.

I am an American because my ancestors fled those Christian religious wars in the early 1800s and came to the USA.

 

[Napoleon]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

As much as secularists, and atheists in particular, love to complain about religious institutions and government entanglements they have yet to step up to fill the void that would be left behind in social and charitable services both nationally and internationally. Personally, I find it disheartening that it is exceedingly difficult to find a credible and effective charitable organization, particularly those working with people, that isn't tied to a religious institution in some form or fashion. The best you can hope for is minimal proselytization. But that is a reflection on the shortcomings of secularists and atheists not an indictment on religion or government.

 

[Gordy327]

As much as secularists, and atheists in particular, love to complain about religious institutions and government entanglements they have yet to step up to fill the void that would be left behind in social and charitable services both nationally and internationally. Personally, I find it disheartening that it is exceedingly difficult to find a credible and effective charitable organization, particularly those working with people, that isn't tied to a religious institution in some form or fashion. The best you can hope for is minimal proselytization. But that is a reflection on the shortcomings of secularists and atheists not an indictment on religion or government.

What does charity have to do with anything? Religious based charity organizations can operate independently. Religion in government is not necessary for charity functions.

 

[jmotivator]

@jmotivator ,
Jefferson was very clear that the government was to be secular. There is no reason, benefit, or need for religious belief in the actions of government. Doing so would be a violation of the religious beliefs of everyone else and create a very dangerous precedent because all religions and non-belief must be treated absolutely equally by the government.

No he really wasn't. He believed a vibrant country requires religious freedom, what he didn't want was the state establishing a specific religion and stifling all other religious expression.

I've already shown you this in another of his letters , and why it is that you are misreading the First Amendment and his Danbury letter so badly. He saw your assertions of his positions as a slander.

 

[BabaVoss]

Should be MUCH stronger. It has been twisted severely.

Fredom OF religion means freedom FROM religion as well. Keep it at home, in your place of worship, and out of government.

 

[Napoleon]

What does charity have to do with anything? Religious based charity organizations can operate independently. Religion in government is not necessary for charity functions.

It has everything to do with it. Governments the world over rely on charitable organizations to provide social services and assistance they cannot or will not provide directly. They partner with them for that purpose. The problem isn’t that the government is partnering with charitable organizations that are linked with religious institutions. The problem is that secular charitable organizations are nowhere to be found.

 

[Lisa]

No he really wasn't. He believed a vibrant country requires religious freedom, what he didn't want was the state establishing a specific religion and stifling all other religious expression.

We all have equal religious freedom because of the Free Exercise clause. The separation of church and state doesn't stifle religious expression. It protects the religious and secular rights of others from being tramples on via the power of the state and a majority religion. Doing that isn't a right that you have.

I've already shown you this in another of his letters , and why it is that you are misreading the First Amendment and his Danbury letter so badly. He saw your assertions of his positions as a slander.

That fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am misreading this. I studied political philosophy and taught poli-sci at the college level for a semester.

 

[Napoleon]

I studied political philosophy and taught poli-sci at the college level for a semester.

A whole semester, eh? What happened to get you tossed out on your ears after only one semester?

 

[BabaVoss]

A whole semester, eh? What happened to get you tossed out on your ears?

How long did you teach?

 

[Napoleon]

How long did you teach?

I’m not the one claiming that getting fired after a mere semester of teaching makes me a subject matter expert in anything. I’m just pointing out what a funny and bizarre flex that is.

 

[jmotivator]

We all have equal religious freedom because of the Free Exercise clause. The separation of church and state doesn't stifle religious expression. It protects the religious and secular rights of others from being tramples on via the power of the state and a majority religion. Doing that isn't a right that you have.

"Equal religious freedom" is a non-starter argument because it can cover a panacea of state policy from absolute religious freedom to policies that outlaw religion entirely. In both cases the religious freedoms are "equal". What you and others try to do with the Dansbury letter of establish an equally limited religious freedom when if fact Jefferson's position was the opposite.

That fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am misreading this. I studied political philosophy and taught poli-sci at the college level for a semester.

I am saying that your assertions of Jefferson's positions based on the Danbury letter are incorrect, but you need to read more of Jefferson's letters to understand his position.

As I said, in Jefferson's letter to DeWitt Clinton he specifically called such a characterization of his positions a slander.

 

[Lisa]

"Equal religious freedom" is a non-starter argument because it can cover a panacea of state policy from absolute religious freedom to policies that outlaw religion entirely. In both cases the religious freedoms are "equal". What you and others try to do with the Dansbury letter of establish an equally limited religious freedom when if fact Jefferson's position was the opposite.

The Free Exercise clause would obviously prohibit banning religious belief.

The separation of church and state only applies to the actions of the government to make it a no-religion zone. Religious belief outside of that is protected. I do not understand why this is so difficult for you to understand

I am saying that your assertions of Jefferson's positions based on the Danbury letter are incorrect, but you need to read more of Jefferson's letters to understand his position.

As I said, in Jefferson's letter to DeWitt Clinton he specifically called such a characterization of his positions a slander.

That is incorrect.

 

[Gordy327]

It has everything to do with it. Governments the world over rely on charitable organizations to provide social services and assistance they cannot or will not provide directly. They partner with them for that purpose. The problem isn’t that the government is partnering with charitable organizations that are linked with religious institutions. The problem is that secular charitable organizations are nowhere to be found.

Religion operates independently of the government. Any religious organization can have whatever charity they want. The government need not be involved.

 

[Napoleon]

Religion operates independently of the government. Any religious organization can have whatever charity they want. The government need not be involved.

So because secularists and atheists are all lip service you would prefer the government not work with charitable organizations at all?

 

[Gordy327]

So because secularists and atheists are all lip service you would prefer the government not work with charitable organizations at all?

What do atheists or such have to do with anything? The issue is the separation of church and state. Not charity organizations.

 

[Napoleon]

What do atheists or such have to do with anything? The issue is the separation of church and state. Not charity organizations.

The two are inexorably linked. It’s not possible to completely cut the State off from religion without terminating its relationship with charitable organizations.