Is there a Church of America?

[Bishop37]

And how do I contact it?

If you're born and christened a protestant in England like myself, it's more than likely you're a Church of England member. Wondering if there's such a thing in the States.

[Commander Taggart]

No. There's a strict separation of Church and State here.

[Sept17th1978eightPM]

Lock this thread now, it is perfect no more need be said. Nice and simple, the ACLU should read this thread.

[Wild Boar]

No. There's a strict separation of Church and State here.

Is that what the First Ammendment states? I always thought that it said:

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.

Now that does mean that the government may not impose a religion on anyone. IMO, the belief that it means anything else is caused by either an extremist viewpoint that mistakes opinion as fact or a lack of understanding of the english language.

[Commander Taggart]

Is that what the First Ammendment states? I always thought that it said:

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.

Now that does mean that the government may not impose a religion on anyone. IMO, the belief that it means anything else is caused by either an extremist viewpoint that mistakes opinion as fact or a lack of understanding of the english language.

What? :confused:

There's no Church of America.

[Wild Boar]

What? :confused:

Surely you can be more substantive than that. Please cite where the First Ammendment states anything about a "strict separation" of church and state. The language isn't there. That concept was invented by people with an agenda.

I'm open to being proven wrong, though. It takes more than a meaningless one-word post, though.


There's no Church of America.

If you read what I posted, we agree on that.

[Commander Taggart]

I'm open to being proven wrong, though. It takes more than a meaningless one-word post, though.

Whatever.

. .

[Dawg]

Is that what the First Ammendment states? I always thought that it said:

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.

Now that does mean that the government may not impose a religion on anyone. IMO, the belief that it means anything else is caused by either an extremist viewpoint that mistakes opinion as fact or a lack of understanding of the english language.

Yes and no. By law, the government cannot establish a "Church of the US" the way the Church of England was established. Over the years, the Supreme Court has also ruled that "establishment of" and "endorsement of" a specific church or theology are essentially the same.

The arguments come when a government entity injects religion into its function - the 10 Commandments in a courtroom, a manorrah at City Hall. In a theocracy, be it Christian or Muslim or Jewish, such should be expected and is certainly reasonable. But we're not a theocracy, we're a Republic with the freedom of religion guaranteed to us, and that guarantee also means we won't be judged by religious tenets but by legal ones.

Now, before anybody accuses me of thinking that public property should never be used for a Nativity scene, let me be clear that I think it's appropriate that public property be used to reflect the community that surrounds it. That means I think it is perfectly appropriate for City Hall to display a Christmas Tree or Nativity scene in December - and they should also display a menorrah during Hannuka, and a Quran during Ramaddan. I think to bar the use of religious symbols is overkill, that instead the effort should be as inclusive of all symbols as possible. Include, don't exclude (which seems to be the trend at the moment).

I am
Dawg

[Bishop37]

Before you all get your knickers in a twist anymore, I think this was what I was looking for.

http://www.acahome.org/

Thank you.

[Dawg]

Before you all get your knickers in a twist anymore, I think this was what I was looking for.

http://www.acahome.org/

Thank you.

Well, why didn't you say so?

:eek: ;)

I am
Dawg

[Sept17th1978eightPM]

Arhhhhh, how do I untwist my knickers?

[jewels]

Before you all get your knickers in a twist anymore, I think this was what I was looking for.

http://www.acahome.org/

Thank you.
Er, I was going to ask if that's who you were looking for. :D Before the fireworks started flying.

We usually refer to them as the Episcopalians. It's from episcopal, as in led by bishops.

[Dawg]

Arhhhhh, how do I untwist my knickers?

There's a special tool.....

:eek:

I am
Dawg

[BST]

Arhhhhh, how do I untwist my knickers?



There's a special tool.....

:eek:

I am
Dawg


Untwisting them, even with the tool, is worse. I'd respectfully advise to leave them twisted.

[Darth Marley]

Surely you can be more substantive than that. Please cite where the First Ammendment states anything about a "strict separation" of church and state. The language isn't there. That concept was invented by people with an agenda.

I'm open to being proven wrong, though. It takes more than a meaningless one-word post, though.



If you read what I posted, we agree on that.

Original intent, anyone?

The "wall of separation" comes from one of Jefferson's letters to a particular denomination.
Religious advocates (advocates of religion in the public square) often try to spin this as meaning it is fine for Christian expressions at public expense as long as it doesn't favor a particular denomination.

That reads to me as contentiously as the "right to keep and bear arms." Clearly there were two major positions about carrying arms that persists today, and the compromise solution hammered out back then still causes problems.

It would have been much easier if indeed, the less orthodox religious views of Jefferson and Franklin were more widely known.

Jefferson uttered something that indicated that he didn't care if his neighbor worshiped one god or many, and seemed to indicate that public ridicule of silly cults would keep things in line. Stallion's comments about people thinking LDS is a cult, and his own views on $cientology point out how little public ridicule serves as a hedge against the spread of "phantastic" belief systems. Ridicule didn't crush Mormonism or $cientology, or a variety of guru based pseudo spiritual Eastern Religion cults.

But, the idea that "strict separation" was dreamed up by those pesky secularists just isn't true.

In fact, I will go so far to say that Christians who lie about the history of Christian expressions in government do their faith a disservice.

The mail used to run on Sundays. Christmas was not always a national holiday. "In God We Trust" was put on the currency in the 1950s, and the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was probably put in around the same time. Over the last 200 years, Christians "with an agenda" have carved out the mail taking a Sunday break, "Judeo-Christian" idolatry on the currency, and a theocratic inclusion in a national loyalty oath.

And don't get me started on "Blue Laws" requiring businesses to close on Sunday, or restricting liquor sales during church hours. Such laws are a local and Christian versions of the Taliban-esque sharia law our military is fighting against in the rest of the world.

So, let us argue sincerely about our respective positions, but spare me the tired old dodge "we can ignore these claims because the speaker has an agenda!."

[Loki]

Arhhhhh, how do I untwist my knickers?

Just soak them in water for a few hours and it gets easier to untwist them.

[BST]

I get so tired of this church & state argument, every time it comes up, that I sometimes wish that the Founding Fathers had decided to ESTABLISH a state religion. But, if that had happened, the ACLU probably would have never existed and think how calamitous our lives would have been if that had occurred. Also, countless lawyers would never have had work and would have had to resort to advertising their ambulance chasing techniques on television.


As I recall, the Founding Fathers wanted there to be NO state religion, i.e., "Church of England", as in NO "Church of America". No state established religion. Sounds simple enough. Now, to take it a step further, I think that it means that the President is not supposed to propose a state religion and that Congress is not to pass any bills which will enact a state religion.

I don't think that the suggestion was that there be NO religion at all, just that there be NO religion mandated, by the government, for the entire populace. Another way to view it would be that there MAY BE a multitude of religions with no one single religion being more favored than any other.

I don't think that it means that we cannot place any type of religious symbol on public property. I think that it means that we cannot place only ONE type of religious symbol on public property. Public property would be open for display of any number and type of religious symbols.

But, that's what I think....and I'm Roman Catholic so, it probably already makes me biased. Feel free to rip this post to shreds but, before doing so, consider one of the underlying reasons WHY the English travelled to the New World, in the first place. Then, have at it!

[BST]

Just soak them in water for a few hours and it gets easier to untwist them.

Sounds painful..like I said before, leave them twisted.

[StarshipTrooper]

Hi,

Well, I tend to agree with the separation of Church and State. But I don't take the extreme stance that "In God We Trust" must be stricken from our currency or that "Under God" must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. But I'm biased. I believe in God although I don't go to church as often as I should.

Regards,

Nathan

[Stallion Cornell]

From http://www.blankslate.net/texts/tolstoy.php

Count Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian author, statesman, and philosopher, held [this] opinion as to the possible future destiny of the "American religion" founded under the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Thomas J. Yates related an experience he had while a student at Cornell University in 1900. He had the privilege of meeting Dr. Andrew D. White, former president of Cornell and, at the time, U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Upon learning that Mr. Yates was a Mormon, Dr. White made an appointment to spend an evening with him, at which time he related an experience he had had with Count Tolstoy while serving as U.S. Foreign Minister to Russia in 1892. Dr. White visited often with Count Tolstoy, and upon one occasion they discussed religion. We quote from Elder Yates' account of this discussion, as related to him by Dr. White:

"Dr. White," said Count Tolstoy, "I wish you would tell me about your American religion."
"We have no state church in America," replied Dr. White.
"I know that, but what about your American religion?"
Patiently then Dr. White explained to the Count that in America there are many religions, and that each person is free to belong to the particular church in which he is interested.
To this Tolstoy impatiently replied: "I know all of this, but I want to know about the American religion. Catholicism originated in Rome; the Episcopal Church originated in England; the Lutheran Church in Germany, but the Church to which I refer originated in America, and is commonly known as the Mormon Church. What can you tell me of the teachings of the Mormons?"
"Well," said Dr. White, "I know very little concerning them. They have an unsavory reputation, they practice polygamy, and are very superstitious."
Then Count Leo Tolstoy, in his honest and stern, but lovable, manner, rebuked the ambassador. "Dr. White, I am greatly surprised and disappointed that a man of your great learning and position should be so ignorant on this important subject. The Mormon people teach the American religion; their principles teach the people not only of Heaven and its attendant glories, but how to live so that their social and economic relations with each other are placed on a sound basis. If the people follow the teachings of this Church, nothing can stop their progress -- it will be limitless. There have been great movements started in the past but they have died or been modified before they reached maturity. If Mormonism is able to endure, unmodified, until it reaches the third and fourth generation, it is destined to become the greatest power the world has ever known."

[necron2.0]

Of course there's a "Church of America." Every citizen worships at the alter from 7pm to 9pm, every single day (some stay worshipping even into the wee hours of the morning).

It's called "television."


Well, I tend to agree with the separation of Church and State.

I agree. Nothing hoses up a good idea faster than a politician. I just wish the politicians would mind their own business, unlike what we have today. Religious obstruction in the name of religious separation is, nonetheless, NOT actual separation.

[Senmut]

Is that what the First Ammendment states? I always thought that it said:

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.

Now that does mean that the government may not impose a religion on anyone. IMO, the belief that it means anything else is caused by either an extremist viewpoint that mistakes opinion as fact or a lack of understanding of the english language.

Precisely. It means that there is no State Church. Period. It does NOT enshrine some mythical "seperation" between the two.

[Tribe13]

Precisely. It means that there is no State Church. Period. It does NOT enshrine some mythical "seperation" between the two.

The "separation", for the record, occurs in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, and it's meaning was the EXACT OPPOSITE of how it's interpreted today. Its original context was meant to be a protection from the state intervening in church matters.

Only in more recent years (1960s and after) has the meaning been altered to what it is today.

I point out that Congress still begins each session in prayer, with a Christian chaplain, and nobody seems to have a problem with it.

[Darth Marley]

Up until the 14th Amendment was ratified, a "State" could have a "state religion" while the federal government could not.

Jefferson did not envision that the separation was a "one way" barrier.
While certainly, in context of the times, it was a measure to reassure formerly persecuted minority religions.

The concept of removing religious consideration from government matters is expressly stated in "Article VI, section 3" and after the 14th Amendment, any state that had such a requirement had such laws and amendments nullified by the U.S. Constitution.

The Danbury letter reads in part {quote}Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.[/quote]

Jefferson's attitude towards religious meddling in affairs of state is plainly stated in afew select quotes cited here:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm


* The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
* The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
* History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
* 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 (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).


Some people do have a problem with a Christian chaplain and a call to prayer.
Just because a practice is tolerated does not make it an ideal condition, or an essential practice.

[Malkyte2]

Article VI, section 3 reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Please explain to me how this reads into seperation of church and state. All I see here is that any persons wishing to hold public office will not be judged fit to hold office on their religious standing or lack there of.

As for the 14th amendment, I saw nothing in there about religion. Perhaps I read it wrong.

Finally, I don't see how Jefferson's letters have any bearing on Consitutional law, other then he expressed his own personal opinion on the subject. As we all know, everyone can have an opinion, but that does not neccessarily make it law.

Original intent? Maybe Jefferson's, but it is not what is said in the actual papers and words that count.

I am with BST on this. I do not believe for one second that the founding fathers of this country intended the kind of definition of "seperation" being preached today.

Concurrently, even if I am Christian, I do not wish my religion to be solely represented in public! I wouldn't mind having a national holiday for Hanukkah or for Chinese New Year! But, no matter how much people want to hide it, this country was founded primarily by christian practicing men, which can be seen in many many of their writings and speeches. While it is not law, there is nothing wrong with remembering where we came from and celebrating our heretige. So, again, I would rather see religious expression being encouraged then discouraged because someone might get offended. ... That's another thing, I never quite understood people who got offended by a tree with lights on it sitting in a square, or worse, a cross. I have seen Jewish stars, menorahs, Budhas, Cresent Moons, and yet I have never ever in my life felt threatened or offended by them.

Instead of taking the time to learn about each other, people want to make the other person hide their beliefs. I don't see how that is American or what the founding fathers wanted.

Maybe I am inching away from the topic at hand a bit...

Like BST, I know its not a popular opinion, but that's just me.


Malkyte

[Darth Marley]

Article VI, section 3 reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Please explain to me how this reads into seperation of church and state. All I see here is that any persons wishing to hold public office will not be judged fit to hold office on their Freligious standing or lack there of.

If you don't see the constitutional forbidding of asking an office holder about their religious beliefs as being part of the "separation of church and state" from its reading then there isn't much that will convince you. It is part of a trend that is clear enough to many. Keeping religious beliefs out of matters pertinent to a secular government is established as a tradition and a guiding principle.

Up until the 14th Amendment, various states did require belief in a creator, or some other religious test as a prerequisite for holding state office.

That brings us to your next issue;




As for the 14th amendment, I saw nothing in there about religion. Perhaps I read it wrong.


"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" is the part that prohibits states from enforcing laws contrary to the federal constitution. In other words, states could no longer have a "state religion" within their borders, as some states did, nor could states require a profession of faith as a prerequisite for holding public office.



Finally, I don't see how Jefferson's letters have any bearing on Consitutional law, other then he expressed his own personal opinion on the subject. As we all know, everyone can have an opinion, but that does not neccessarily make it law.

Original intent? Maybe Jefferson's, but it is not what is said in the actual papers and words that count.

Are you saying that original intent should not matter? That we should not look to the Federalist papers to guide us in understanding what the 2nd Amendment really means?
Or that the letters of Jefferson, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom should not be examined when trying to parse the meaning and intent of the framers?

That is unfortunate, but I can certainly understand why those who argue that guided prayer in public schools is something Jefferson would endorse might well like to remove such works from consideration.

Claiming that "the constitution doesn't say that" when the private letters of the men who wrote it clearly indicates otherwise is a tactic, not a search for truth and meaning.
Jefferson did favor separating religion from government.

http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Religion throughout history have opposed interference from the state when they are a minority, and embraced using the power of the state when they are a majority. The principle of separation, of a secular state, is constructed to endure and champion a universal value of freedom no matter what religion holds the majority among the citizenry.

Evangelical conservatives love to chime in that our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian values, while conveniently ignoring that a classical education demonstrates soundly that would could at least equally claim that tour values and legal traditions inherit largely from a Greco-Roman tradition.



I am with BST on this. I do not believe for one second that the founding fathers of this country intended the kind of definition of "seperation" being preached today.

Concurrently, even if I am Christian, I do not wish my religion to be solely represented in public! I wouldn't mind having a national holiday for Hanukkah or for Chinese New Year! But, no matter how much people want to hide it, this country was founded primarily by christian practicing men, which can be seen in many many of their writings and speeches. While it is not law, there is nothing wrong with remembering where we came from and celebrating our heretige. So, again, I would rather see religious expression being encouraged then discouraged because someone might get offended. ... That's another thing, I never quite understood people who got offended by a tree with lights on it sitting in a square, or worse, a cross. I have seen Jewish stars, menorahs, Budhas, Cresent Moons, and yet I have never ever in my life felt threatened or offended by them.

Instead of taking the time to learn about each other, people want to make the other person hide their beliefs. I don't see how that is American or what the founding fathers wanted.

Maybe I am inching away from the topic at hand a bit...

Like BST, I know its not a popular opinion, but that's just me.


Malkyte

I can agree with BST in terms on many points, like the sentiment that the separation clause is not meant to "remove religion." I can agree that there is some hysterical over-reactions among the secularists to public displays of religion.

Either side of the argument has ridiculous extremes.

But, wishing something were a particular legal fact (or opinion as the case may be) does not make it so (or legally binding).
A read of the 9th Circuit decision that decreed that "under God" in the PoA was unconstitutional is very clear and rational.If we are to avoid mandating religious beliefs, then the simple inclusion of the Eisenhower era phrase "under God" is prejudicial against polytheists. Rather than react as if "They are banning God from the schools!" it would be better to just accept that reasoning as it was written, and teach kids about family religious beliefs and practices in the home, and not in the public school.

Kind of like how many conservative parents feel about sex education.

And what is wrong with that?

The idea that the founders were "Christian" is a matter for debate. And in that matter, the personal letters of Jefferson and the other founders are certainly important to the discussion. That would be a fun issue to unpack, perhaps in a dedicated thread.
There are various issues to examine there, like were they Christian as we understand the term today? How was Christian practice different back then? Were the Foudning Fatheres "Enlightenment Secularists" or not? Can they be Enlihgtenment Secularists, Deiist, or some other label, and still be called Christian by today's conservative Christian observers?

[Malkyte2]

If you don't see the constitutional forbidding of asking an office holder about their religious beliefs as being part of the "separation of church and state" from its reading then there isn't much that will convince you. It is part of a trend that is clear enough to many. Keeping religious beliefs out of matters pertinent to a secular government is established as a tradition and a guiding principle.

Once again I present and I ask....

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Where does it talk about seperation here? The highlighted area states that someone running for office will not win or lose such an office by the religious beliefs they hold. This makes more sense to me, coming from a time when, if you were not a part of the Church of England, you could not hold any meaningful office.

It is interesting that you would condem the religious side whom you say tries to include something that is not there, while supporting a "new trend" that is equally invalid.

You have pointed out many quotes from Jefferson expressing his opinions on the subject in his letters and took him at his word, but cannot take his words as they are, when it comes to actual law and not just opinion.

As I think we can agree, a number of the founding fathers had a skill for writting, including Jefferson. So then I ask you, if he could express his opinion so clearly in his letters and that is indeed the meaning we are to derive from the laws that he and others agreed upon (notice I did not say , that he wanted), then why not use clearer and less ambiguous language to get the point across? Because the facts support that it is clear in intent and it is not what the current trend is trying to read into it.


Up until the 14th Amendment, various states did require belief in a creator, or some other religious test as a prerequisite for holding state office.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" is the part that prohibits states from enforcing laws contrary to the federal constitution. In other words, states could no longer have a "state religion" within their borders, as some states did, nor could states require a profession of faith as a prerequisite for holding public office.

Okay, I can better understand where that ties in now. I can even appreciate why it was done. But that still does not tie into a supposed seperation of church and state. It meerly states that you cannot get or be denied a position in office due to your religious standing, much like you should not be judged by your skin color, your gender etc. Thats what I read. With that sort of logic, there should be a seperation of gender and state, of ethnicity and state... etc.


Are you saying that original intent should not matter? That we should not look to the Federalist papers to guide us in understanding what the 2nd Amendment really means?
Or that the letters of Jefferson, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom should not be examined when trying to parse the meaning and intent of the framers?

If you're asking in terms of historical, scholarly study of what peoples' opinions were at the time, then I would say, yes, it should matter. But as far as determining and reinterpreting laws according to what we think today, they meant by the feelings and opinions they expressed back then, then no I don't. As I stated before, just because Jeffereson's opinion was so strong on the subject, does not mean that the rest of the founding fathers agreed to those same opinions. I would venture that a few dieas and drafts were created before the final one was presented, and that not everyone got exactly what they wanted. The words that Jefferson wrote in his letters, do not mean the same thing to me, then those written in the Constitution, no matter what his personal intent might have been. The Constitution is what was written into law, not his letters.


That is unfortunate, but I can certainly understand why those who argue that guided prayer in public schools is something Jefferson would endorse might well like to remove such works from consideration.

From what I can remember, Jefferson was not the only opinion in the room when the Constitution was ratified. So whether he personally believed in prayer in schools or not is fairly irrelevant to the law at hand. Mind you, again, my stance is not exclusionism as the current trend wants to endorse, but rather inclusionism, which recognizes and respects all religions or non religions.

What is wrong with a moment of silence in schools? Each individual can do what they will with that moment of silence. If they choose to pray, that is their right. If they choose to pick their nose during that time, that is their right. All that exclusionism does is continually ferment the continued racial, ethnical and religious devides this country still has in the 21st century and will continue to do so until policies (not laws, because they are not broken, just the interpretations are) are changed to that of inclusionism.

(And yes, I have not missed the irony of me arguing for inclusionism, when I seemed to have made an arguement about exclusionism on the topic of gay marraige. But thats a whole other topic. ;) )


Claiming that "the constitution doesn't say that" when the private letters of the men who wrote it clearly indicates otherwise is a tactic, not a search for truth and meaning.
Jefferson did favor separating religion from government.

http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

It is no more of a tactic then to claim something is there because of the private writings and opinions of but one of the many participants, in the forming of our set of governing laws, when it is clearly not there. As I stated before, these were intelligent and well writen men who knew how to write. With that said, the opinions in the letters, do not match the words in the written laws. I don't understand how it could be so easy to accept the words in the letters as what they are, and not accept the words in the Constitutions as they are.

The answer is the same as your accusations towards the religious side... people on all sides have an agenda, to get their side the most favorable results possible. This tactic is not exclusive to the religious side.


Religion throughout history have opposed interference from the state when they are a minority, and embraced using the power of the state when they are a majority. The principle of separation, of a secular state, is constructed to endure and champion a universal value of freedom no matter what religion holds the majority among the citizenry.

I agree with the first part. The second part about a secular state sounds great on paper, but is not something that can be a successful reality. Be as it may, I still don't see that as what the Constitution states, no matter what Jeffereson and others thought about it in private.


Evangelical conservatives love to chime in that our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian values, while conveniently ignoring that a classical education demonstrates soundly that would could at least equally claim that tour values and legal traditions inherit largely from a Greco-Roman tradition.

Yes, it could... but as most of our founding fathers did not originate from the Greco-Roman cultures, but infact from Judeo-Christian tradition, and based a lot of their decisions on the treatments they received at the hand of Judeo-Christian rulers, it is fair to say that the bases for our laws, indeed came from such a place. You can argue that those beliefs are direved from older traditions, and even further back, but that only delutes the facts. Our founding fathers were not driven to their decisions by what happened in Greek or the Roman empires hundreds of years before their time, but rather what they and others like them were induring in a Judeo-Christian dominated Europe of their own time. This cannot be denied. The Quakers and such religious groups that came over from Europe were of a Jude-Christian background. And while they were not the only ones who came over, they were certainly the majority, ie Judeo-Christians.


I can agree with BST in terms on many points, like the sentiment that the separation clause is not meant to "remove religion." I can agree that there is some hysterical over-reactions among the secularists to public displays of religion.

Either side of the argument has ridiculous extremes.

Agreed.


But, wishing something were a particular legal fact (or opinion as the case may be) does not make it so (or legally binding).

Again, I agree. Wishing that Jefferson's letters represent the same thing which is actually written into law, does not and should not make it legally binding.


A read of the 9th Circuit decision that decreed that "under God" in the PoA was unconstitutional is very clear and rational.If we are to avoid mandating religious beliefs, then the simple inclusion of the Eisenhower era phrase "under God" is prejudicial against polytheists. Rather than react as if "They are banning God from the schools!" it would be better to just accept that reasoning as it was written, and teach kids about family religious beliefs and practices in the home, and not in the public school.

Well, yeah, the good ol' 9th circuit! And yes, the logic is there and in truth I can accept their ruling. With that said, I fail to see how it would harm anyone to have to stand through that. Anyone not wanting to say that part does not have to. But fine.

However, I strongly disagree with the notion that religion should only be taught at home and not in schools. On the contrary, all religion should be taught in schools, just like any other subject. It is exactly this type of thinking that keeps this country from moving forward in understanding and repecting other religions, cultures and ethnicities.


Kind of like how many conservative parents feel about sex education.

And yet, it is still done. But this is a whole other subject all together.


And what is wrong with that?

Nothing. Just as there should be no fear against religion.


The idea that the founders were "Christian" is a matter for debate. And in that matter, the personal letters of Jefferson and the other founders are certainly important to the discussion. That would be a fun issue to unpack, perhaps in a dedicated thread.
There are various issues to examine there, like were they Christian as we understand the term today? How was Christian practice different back then? Were the Foudning Fatheres "Enlightenment Secularists" or not? Can they be Enlihgtenment Secularists, Deiist, or some other label, and still be called Christian by today's conservative Christian observers?

That woiuld be interesting, but I agree that that is an entirely seperrate subject on its own.

Final words... if the founding fathers truly wanted seperation of Church and State, why not write it as plainly in the Constituion. They managed to get other points very clearly across, yet this one is ambiguous at best, to the point where they had to additionally amend what they had written to begin with. At least that is what the supporters of this want us to believe. What I don't understand is, if they were able to spell out, every little detail of how things were going to run, why was something obviously this crucial left so ambiguous? Why not have its own article? This would truly been a huge deal even back then, if not more so. Yet its not there.

So no, I don't buy it. It is meerly the other side of the aisle flexing its muscle and sadly winning something that is not true. All that article and that amendment address is that no one running for office will lose or win a public office due to their religious beliefs or lack there of. That's it. Period.

Ok, I'm done.

;)


Malkyte

[Darth Marley]

Regarding Article VI, section 3, I told you, if you don't see that as a trend of secularizing government, then there is damn little anyone can do to make you see it that way.

Does it have anything to do with how government handles religion? Does it keep religious tests out of consideration for holding government office? I say yes, and since I answer affirmatively, I say that it advocates separation of religion and government.

There is no need to repeat it again, and get into a circular discussion about it. If you don't think that is an example of how the founders were opposed to professions of faith, even in the limited context of prerequisite for office holding, then I can't help you. It says what it says.

It does not say that someone will not win or lose an election based upon their religion. It says that no law or oath of office can require a profession of faith.

And next you go on to suggest that I am including something that isn't there? That is flat out bullshit. I am quoting the damn thing. Everyone can see what it says. And I assure you, I am not the only person on the planet that sees it as a part of the "wall of separation" our founders envisioned.

Disagreeing about how to interpret it is one thing, suggesting that I am committing endogesis regarding the text and its meaning is another.

It is an example of original intent. I am not distorting the words by any measure.

This clause predates the First Amendment.

It isn't just my interpretation of the words, but it is also the interpretation of the courts.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947);

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Seems simple enough that prayer in schools, and allegiance to "one country under God" fails that test.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)


There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. ... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The settled case law on this matter is quite clear.
The framers wanted to keep religious tests out of matters of secular government.

Arguing that because this article, or the first and 14th amendment do not say "thou shalt separate church and state" does not mean that the meaning and intent of those articles and amendments, as well as the corresepondence of their authors is in opposition to taht sentiment. In fact, it argues that the concept was the intnet of the founders.

The rest of your post seems less contentious. At the least, I don't get a reaction that I am being charged with reading in to these documents something that isn't there, and isn't supported by a clear preponderance of supporting historical documents.

You go one to mention that Jefferson's personal letters are not the law, and I agree. But you mentioned that the founders were Christian. And you based that upon what exactly? Their writings? I can accept the distinction between law and debate about religion in correspondence. No need to bicker over that.

Regarding "what is wrong with a moment of silence in schools." the answer is clear. the "Lemon Test" is the legal standards which courts apply to such matters. Just like the courts find that mandating teaching of "intelligent design" is a back boor attempt to teach religion, so too is a "moment of silence" an effort to skirt the settled case law as far as possible.

I don't think there is anything wrong with believing students praying, and I imagine that many do so before a big test. But setting aside time to allow such things is in effect a stealth support for religion. I oppose it the way I oppose foot sinks for Muslims and segregation by sex in public schools with a Muslim majority student population.

Nothing stops the kids from praying, but anything a public school does that encourages such divine supplication fails the Lemon test.

One thing I don't get is why professing Christians will put so much time and effort into scheming ways around the law, or in the case of some southern school districts, breaking the law entirely.

Skipping points of essential agreement, I think you are understating the role of "enlightenment thinking" in claiming a dominance of "Judeo-Christian" founhdations.

I really thing getting into that topic in another thread in the Senate section. There we can see if the religious practices and beliefs of the founders are really something you would recognize as Christian. Though I am a secular type of a person, I enjoy the study of religions, and the evolution of Christianity is a matter of interest to me. getting into the nitty-dark-and-gritty of which founders you would label Christian, and and up close examination of their beliefs and practices would be fun.

The barb at the 9th Circuit...I know, they are overturned often. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Reading that decision is a worthwhile exercise. I am not going to argue that even many of the 9th Circuit decisions are on solid ground, but this is one I have actually read. I tis internally consistent and legally sound. I encourage you to hunt it down and read it. One should examine the argument they make, and not merely "judge the messenger" in these matters.

Regarding the final matter of "why didn't they just spell it out?" is a fair question that I can immediately give a few good replies about.

First, one can ask the same question regarding the second and ninth amendments.
The meaning of those are also contentious matters.

Elements of the founding documents are exercises in compromise. the tolerance of slavery until a future date is one such example.

Since some of the colonies had religious tests up until the 14th amendment, that spirit of compromise is an argument in favor of ambiguity.
Suggesting that "if that is what they meant then they would have said so" doesn't hold up given the context of the times, and what was politically possible then.

And it isn't just elected office that the article mentioned applies to, appointed offices, any office, there shall be no religious test, it means what it says.

[Dawg]

Once again I present and I ask....

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Where does it talk about seperation here? The highlighted area states that someone running for office will not win or lose such an office by the religious beliefs they hold. This makes more sense to me, coming from a time when, if you were not a part of the Church of England, you could not hold any meaningful office.

It's the other side of the coin. As government is prohibited from establishing or endorsing a "state" religion, it is also prohibited from requiring some religious affiliation in order to hold elected office. They thought this separation was important enough and so basic a right to include it in the Constitution so that individual states couldn't usurp that freedom of religion.

You've also got to keep in mind that the Constitution was written by committee. As such, some language was watered down so that all viewpoints could be represented. Right now there is a debate over the 2nd Amendment as to what the writers meant by "militia"; the courts, as they're asked to rule, are finding (correctly) that the intent of the framers was to allow citizens to arm themselves against a corrupt standing army. Those who argue that "militia" means "National Guard" are conveniently overlooking the simple and inescapable fact that the various National Guard units are adjuncts of the existing standing armed forces, and in the late 1700's a militia was a non-governmental group of private citizens. This is a perfect example of while the statesman of 1776 could not possibly have foreseen the particulars of the 21st Century, the framework they laid down is as valid today as it was then.

It was the intent of the founding fathers to have the government, both Federal and State, not interfere with the beliefs or worship of any single citizen. We are free to believe as we will and worship as we will. At its core, this means that government is not in the religion business, and religion has no business as part of government.

In the past century, the high courts of the land have ruled on various cases that have brought a harsh spotlight on the issue. Posting the 10 Commandments in a courtroom or in front of a courthouse. Christmas trees and crucifixes at City Hall. In many cases, the courts have ruled such displays unfairly promote one religion, and that promotion is contrary to the Constitutional guarantees that separate any single religion from government.

I think that's an important point - any single religion.

I also believe that all religions should be represented at appropriate times. I have no problem with the idea of a blatantly Christian display at Christmas at City Hall, as long as there's a menorah for Hanukkah, and a Koran for Ramadan, at the appropriate times.

You'll note that none of the court decisions since the Supreme Court was formed says word one that public servants should be religion-free. Faith is the most personal of all things, and a great many people rely on their faith to guide them in their day-to-day lives. It's when government decides to place one religion over all others that it runs afoul of Constitutional law.

BTW - did we ever answer Peter's question? The Church of England in America are the Episcopalians. I think.

;)

I am
Dawg

[Darth Marley]

The Church of England in America are the Episcopalians. I think.

Yes, and Washington was an Anglican, nominally.
Early settlements were theocracies.

Quakers and Puritans along with Calvinists set up their own enclaves, and as such, a compromise among these petite theocracies was necessary for the articles of confederation to become accepted.

[Malkyte2]

Regarding Article VI, section 3, I told you, if you don't see that as a trend of secularizing government, then there is damn little anyone can do to make you see it that way.

Yes you did say that. Does that mean I should not respond?

[qoute]Does it have anything to do with how government handles religion? Does it keep religious tests out of consideration for holding government office? I say yes, and since I answer affirmatively, I say that it advocates separation of religion and government.[/quote]

To the first question, the answer is partially yes. I think it deals with a part of religion and its effects on public office, but not religion as a whole and as a case for complete seperation. The second part, absolutely. This is how I read it and stated numerous times. Where we differ is your "therefore" statement. I do not see the leap in logic of absolutes that you make in regards to this. I am sorry that it irks, you, but that is where we differ, and I do think you are reading far more into it then there is.


There is no need to repeat it again, and get into a circular discussion about it. If you don't think that is an example of how the founders were opposed to professions of faith, even in the limited context of prerequisite for office holding, then I can't help you. It says what it says.

Where did I say anything other THEN this. This is exactly what I said. The only difference is, I did not make the next jump in so called logic, that would make this a case of absolute seperation. That is what I call BS.


It does not say that someone will not win or lose an election based upon their religion. It says that no law or oath of office can require a profession of faith.

To me, that says pretty much the same thing. There will be no laws or any kind of requirements set forth that will preclude anyone from office based on their religious preference. Is that better?


And next you go on to suggest that I am including something that isn't there? That is flat out bullshit. I am quoting the damn thing. Everyone can see what it says. And I assure you, I am not the only person on the planet that sees it as a part of the "wall of separation" our founders envisioned.

There is no reason to get upset. At least I hope you are not. I still say that the leap in logic by you and like minded individuals is not there. That is my view and there is no other way I can say it. Also there is no reason to throw around how other people see it that way, because I am sure I can find a few that see it my way. So? This is a discussion between you and I (and Dawg, and a few others ;) ).


Disagreeing about how to interpret it is one thing, suggesting that I am committing endogesis regarding the text and its meaning is another.

I am not sure what the difference is, but I guess I am saying that I believe that you and like minded individuals are interpreting the wrong meaning from the text. If that satisfies the definition of endogesis, then so be it.


It is an example of original intent. I am not distorting the words by any measure.

Original intent is a BS arguement. Original intent could and usually changes as it evolves and finally becomes law. It doesn't matter what the original intent was, if the final wording that is law does not reflect such intent. It was originally intended that women and colored people should not be allowed to vote. It was originally intended that slaves would still be permited. Does that mean that we should bring those back because they were originally intended? Original intent in this case is not what you believe it to be, IMO. And when I say that, I mean what is in law, not what people wanted to be law. Two very different things.

While Jefferson may have very well wanted a true seperation of church and state, apparently others did not feel so, and the end result was this language in which a certain act is not permitted. There is no reference to an absolute situation. And no matter how you try and squeze it, its not there.


This clause predates the First Amendment.

It isn't just my interpretation of the words, but it is also the interpretation of the courts.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947);


Seems simple enough that prayer in schools, and allegiance to "one country under God" fails that test.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)



The settled case law on this matter is quite clear.
The framers wanted to keep religious tests out of matters of secular government.

I don't have an arguement with these quotes. They do uphold the articles in question, but again do not talk about an absolute seperation, in my eyes anyway.


Arguing that because this article, or the first and 14th amendment do not say "thou shalt separate church and state" does not mean that the meaning and intent of those articles and amendments, as well as the corresepondence of their authors is in opposition to taht sentiment. In fact, it argues that the concept was the intnet of the founders.

I disagree. Opinion and what is actually written law are two seperate things. Intent is not law unless put into words in ratified legislation. The intent might have been there by some, but obviously, others had different intent and a completely different law was written then either (or multiple) parties intended.


The rest of your post seems less contentious. At the least, I don't get a reaction that I am being charged with reading in to these documents something that isn't there, and isn't supported by a clear preponderance of supporting historical documents.

Do not take my comments as attacks, but meer perceptions. They may be wrong, they maybe right. I am meerly sharing my views.


You go one to mention that Jefferson's personal letters are not the law, and I agree. But you mentioned that the founders were Christian. And you based that upon what exactly? Their writings? I can accept the distinction between law and debate about religion in correspondence. No need to bicker over that.

I actually did not say that they were Christians, becasue frankly, I don not know enough on the subject. What I did say, was that quite a few of them were from a Judeo-Christian tradition, meaning that that is what they grew up with and were surounded by. Interestingly neough, I did a little digging and came up with a few things. Namely, Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison all had Christian backgrounds. While their level of fiath in true organzied Christian religion differed, and some even considered themselves deist, they each held onto the basic teaching of Christianity, no more so then Jefferson. The Jeffersonian Bible is a prime example of his views on religion, or the role of their teachings anyway.


Regarding "what is wrong with a moment of silence in schools." the answer is clear. the "Lemon Test" is the legal standards which courts apply to such matters. Just like the courts find that mandating teaching of "intelligent design" is a back boor attempt to teach religion, so too is a "moment of silence" an effort to skirt the settled case law as far as possible.

I don't think there is anything wrong with believing students praying, and I imagine that many do so before a big test. But setting aside time to allow such things is in effect a stealth support for religion. I oppose it the way I oppose foot sinks for Muslims and segregation by sex in public schools with a Muslim majority student population.

Nothing stops the kids from praying, but anything a public school does that encourages such divine supplication fails the Lemon test.

I can't argue with this. It makes sense.


One thing I don't get is why professing Christians will put so much time and effort into scheming ways around the law, or in the case of some southern school districts, breaking the law entirely.

I don't know either, but they are hardly the only group to be doing that.


Skipping points of essential agreement, I think you are understating the role of "enlightenment thinking" in claiming a dominance of "Judeo-Christian" founhdations.

I really thing getting into that topic in another thread in the Senate section. There we can see if the religious practices and beliefs of the founders are really something you would recognize as Christian. Though I am a secular type of a person, I enjoy the study of religions, and the evolution of Christianity is a matter of interest to me. getting into the nitty-dark-and-gritty of which founders you would label Christian, and and up close examination of their beliefs and practices would be fun.

I am not sure if I can do much debating on this subject in a whole new thread, as my knowledge is very minimal on this, but I would be interested in reading what you know, should you decide to share it. As for my stance that at least a good portion of our laws were ground out based on Judeo-Christian principles, I believe my brief dig into the lives of our founding fathers have shown that to be the case, admittedly on a very superficial level.


The barb at the 9th Circuit...I know, they are overturned often. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Reading that decision is a worthwhile exercise. I am not going to argue that even many of the 9th Circuit decisions are on solid ground, but this is one I have actually read. I tis internally consistent and legally sound. I encourage you to hunt it down and read it. One should examine the argument they make, and not merely "judge the messenger" in these matters.

I will read it. Though, as I mentioned, I am ok with what they said from your brief explanation.


Regarding the final matter of "why didn't they just spell it out?" is a fair question that I can immediately give a few good replies about.

First, one can ask the same question regarding the second and ninth amendments.
The meaning of those are also contentious matters.

Elements of the founding documents are exercises in compromise. the tolerance of slavery until a future date is one such example.

Since some of the colonies had religious tests up until the 14th amendment, that spirit of compromise is an argument in favor of ambiguity.

Suggesting that "if that is what they meant then they would have said so" doesn't hold up given the context of the times, and what was politically possible then.

And it isn't just elected office that the article mentioned applies to, appointed offices, any office, there shall be no religious test, it means what it says.

I do not argue that it talks of all forms of office, but I do take issue with thinking it reflects a wider net, then those stated offices. As you mentioned, salvery was eventually rid of by an Amendment to the existing Constitutional words, not by reinterpreting existing words already written.

A couple of closing points, as to why I don' buy this arguement... Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, who wrote in support of a seperation of church and state, that is supposedly the original intent proof, took the oath of office on a Bible. During his presidency, Jefferson attended the weekly church services held in the House of Representatives. He also permitted church services in executive branch buildings throughout his administration, believing that Christianity was a prop for republican government. While later on, he did not belief in divinity or per say priests, he had a high level of acceptance of Jesus' teachings.

Since then, the majorityof presidence have been sworn in on a Bible and with the words "So Help Me God".

Please explain to me how the person, whom is given credit for the idea of complete seperation of church and state, could go against his own original intent as President of the United States? And how after all these years and 43 presidents sworn into office, why such ceremonies continue to take place when it should be unconstitutional? Also, how is it, that it took nearly 150 years for people to "realize" the true intent of the laws written? Were the people before us too stupid?

Jefferson's actions speak louder then any words he may have written about seperation. To me it only reinforces, that it was never the intent for a complete seperation, as being explained in todays time. There was an intent to keep the state from creating a state sponsored religion and to not make any lawsfor religion or against it. However, things like public displays of religion was never in the intent.

Displaying a Christmas tree on public ground, is not unconstitutional, because there was no law set forth deeming the display as mandetory. Nor was there a law prohibiting the display of other religious symbols, at least not on a federal level.

Again, after reading into some of the bios, it seemed to me that the founding fathers had many problems with the people representing religion, but not neccessarily with what was thought or that they should be hden from everyone else. I read it more as an inclusionist idea, where people come together to share ideas, to study and to then determine if something was for them or not.

But to be honest... I think I might be rambling now as it is really late and I can barely read the screen, so with that....


Malkyte

[Darth Marley]

"Leaps of logic?"

You are hung up on the idea that "there is no case for a complete separation."

The fact remains, there is a case for separation. Or do you deny that? Is your claim that there is no case made that the article mentioned, coupled with the 1st Amendment, with generous doses of original intent of the framers, for the separation of church and state?

Or are you really just trying to creatively interpret that division to be one way, and arrange things so it is fine for religion to have place in government but not vice versa?

If it is to be a matter of degrees of separation, then it becomes a matter of how much state support of religion can we have and still be free of state support of religion.

Oh no! A logic of absolutes! Run for the hills!

I hate the lengthy quotes of points, so maybe just tackling one issue at a time can keep a single issue in frame.

Is the matter of the "one way wall" where we differ? Or is it a matter of the degree of separation?

[Darth Marley]

Displaying a Christmas tree on public ground, is not unconstitutional, because there was no law set forth deeming the display as mandetory. Nor was there a law prohibiting the display of other religious symbols, at least not on a federal level.


Ah, but this could be that logic of absolutes that you dislike in others.

Not all public displays of Christmas trees or Nativity scenes are deemed unconstitutional. there are cases that are allowed, and cases that are not.

[Darth Marley]

Can Jefferson be a Christian as we would understand it today, if his redacted bible left out any mention of the divinity of Jesus, omitted miracles, and left out the Resurrection?

[Malkyte2]

"Leaps of logic?"

You are hung up on the idea that "there is no case for a complete separation."

The fact remains, there is a case for separation. Or do you deny that? Is your claim that there is no case made that the article mentioned, coupled with the 1st Amendment, with generous doses of original intent of the framers, for the separation of church and state?

Or are you really just trying to creatively interpret that division to be one way, and arrange things so it is fine for religion to have place in government but not vice versa?

If it is to be a matter of degrees of separation, then it becomes a matter of how much state support of religion can we have and still be free of state support of religion.

Oh no! A logic of absolutes! Run for the hills!

I hate the lengthy quotes of points, so maybe just tackling one issue at a time can keep a single issue in frame.

Is the matter of the "one way wall" where we differ? Or is it a matter of the degree of separation?

I am no more "hung up" on any idea then you are, and there is no reason to get condisending. We are just exchange ideas here. I doubt either one of us will change there stand.

And no, I do not believe that there is a case for seperation as advocated in todays courts. As I have clearly stated before, I believe that my beliefs resemble much of what BST stated earlier, in that the US government will not start a state religion or support any religion through laws and legislations over any other belief system.


Malkyte

[Malkyte2]

Ah, but this could be that logic of absolutes that you dislike in others.

Not all public displays of Christmas trees or Nativity scenes are deemed unconstitutional. there are cases that are allowed, and cases that are not.

Which makes no sense if one is to believe the complete seperation of church and state many argue for these days. Either they can co-exist or they cannot.

The absolute is understood in the Constitution that no laws or regulations will be set forth in support or against religion, but nowhere does it state that you cannot have the displays of religious symbols as a celebration of those beliefs, as long as there is equal opportunity given to all. That's the meaning I read. That's the intent I see.

I said at the beginning that I fully realize my opinion is not a popular one, but it is the one that I hold.


Malkyte

[Malkyte2]

Can Jefferson be a Christian as we would understand it today, if his redacted bible left out any mention of the divinity of Jesus, omitted miracles, and left out the Resurrection?

This question is irrelevant. The degree of his Christianity does not dismiss the fact that he is from a Judeo-Christian background of which he studied extensively and based his opinions on. Wheher he believed in the divinity of Christ is also irrelevant for the point I was trying to make, because he still felt that the moral teachings of Jesus was indeed very important. In addition, as I stated before, the person whom you quoted as making the strongest case for seperation of church and state, was doing exactly the things during his presidency that many now want to ban.

I find that odd and contradictory to the prevailing arguements of today.


Malkyte

[Darth Marley]

This question is irrelevant. The degree of his Christianity does not dismiss the fact that he is from a Judeo-Christian background of which he studied extensively and based his opinions on. Wheher he believed in the divinity of Christ is also irrelevant for the point I was trying to make, because he still felt that the moral teachings of Jesus was indeed very important. In addition, as I stated before, the person whom you quoted as making the strongest case for seperation of church and state, was doing exactly the things during his presidency that many now want to ban.

I find that odd and contradictory to the prevailing arguements of today.


Malkyte

Why is it irrelevant? Because you say so?
Because you don't like the question? Becuase the implications might be uncomfortable?
It may be irrelevant to the point you were making in a particular argument, but what of the question by itself?
Your dismissal comes off as a desire to sweep away any examination of the issue.

[Darth Marley]

I am no more "hung up" on any idea then you are, and there is no reason to get condisending. We are just exchange ideas here. I doubt either one of us will change there stand.

And no, I do not believe that there is a case for seperation as advocated in todays courts. As I have clearly stated before, I believe that my beliefs resemble much of what BST stated earlier, in that the US government will not start a state religion or support any religion through laws and legislations over any other belief system.


Malkyte

Look, at this point, you are not treating this a test of truth claims, but it seems you are trying to keep a score in a "gotcha" game.

You don't believe tht thte courts are right because you don't believe the courts are right, and you reject any evidence that supports the courts being right.

You try to define away inconvenient evideence rather than examine the inconvienient.

It is like you want to have your cake and eat it twice.

If you don't want to engage the points I make without diving for the exits by saying "that is irrelevant" and such, then there is no reason to go forward, much like waht I said about your interpetation of Article VI, section 3.

[Darth Marley]

Which makes no sense if one is to believe the complete seperation of church and state many argue for these days. Either they can co-exist or they cannot.

The absolute is understood in the Constitution that no laws or regulations will be set forth in support or against religion, but nowhere does it state that you cannot have the displays of religious symbols as a celebration of those beliefs, as long as there is equal opportunity given to all. That's the meaning I read. That's the intent I see.

I said at the beginning that I fully realize my opinion is not a popular one, but it is the one that I hold.


Malkyte

Rather than evading the question, just answer it.



Is the matter of the "one way wall" where we differ? Or is it a matter of the degree of separation?

At that point, we define the conflict, and move forward rather than pontificate on entrenched positions.

[Malkyte2]

Why is it irrelevant? Because you say so?
Because you don't like the question? Becuase the implications might be uncomfortable?
It may be irrelevant to the point you were making in a particular argument, but what of the question by itself?
Your dismissal comes off as a desire to sweep away any examination of the issue.


You are kiding right? I made my point as to why it is irrelevant right after I stated so. The question you pose has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make and I explained why. If you think it has some reason for being included then you explain, but don't just throw out questions to see if you can catch me in some contradiction or just for sheer arguements sake.

The question you pose and the way you posed it, belongs in a different thread, and in my views have no baring on what we were talking about here, other then the way I have already, twice tried to explain it. If you have questions or a counter arguement, then present it... don't just reply with questions. You acuse me of dodging questions, but you answer mine with questions and that have no relevance.

Please. :rolleyes:


Malkyte

[Malkyte2]

Look, at this point, you are not treating this a test of truth claims, but it seems you are trying to keep a score in a "gotcha" game.

Wow... just wow.... I make my case, I present my arguements... to which I get condisending remarks and questions, rather any counter arguements.

Now you have decided that you know all of my points and standing and declare that I am the one keeping score?


You don't believe tht thte courts are right because you don't believe the courts are right, and you reject any evidence that supports the courts being right.

I don't believe the courts are right because I don't believe the evidence says what they think it says. Period. I will add that I have not rejected everything they have said. Though, apparently for your arguement, that needed to be ignored.


You try to define away inconvenient evideence rather than examine the inconvienient.

Please explain. You make an accusation without any example.


It is like you want to have your cake and eat it twice.

Whatever. I have made my point clearly. You have answered me with questions rather then counter arguements and petty condisending remarks, rahter then responding to the points. If that is all you have to add, then perhaps our discussion should end.


f you don't want to engage the points I make without diving for the exits by saying "that is irrelevant" and such, then there is no reason to go forward, much like waht I said about your interpetation of Article VI, section 3.

I would suggest you re-read my previous two posts, then re-read your previous two posts and see who is actually responding to the points and who is simply trying to catch the other particapant in some falsehood or God knows what.



Malkyte

[Malkyte2]

Rather than evading the question, just answer it.

There was no question there to answer. You did not supply enough information on why some courts would allow public displays while others would not. I answered as best as I could and the way I interprete the law. Just my opinion, obviously not binding in any shape or form. So in a way I answered what possible question there might have been.

Which by the way, is more consideration then you have shown me and my questions.


At that point, we define the conflict, and move forward rather than pontificate on entrenched positions.

I agree, but that takes two. I have been trying to answer your questions, but you reply with either more questions or condisending remarks. if that is all you are going to do, then there really is no point in moving forward on this discussion.

For what its worth, I am not clear as to what you mean by a "one way wall". However, from the brief and actual replies you have given on the topic at hand, I would agree that our difference might be in the degrees of seperation.


Malkyte

[Darth Marley]

Yes, I have answered with questions, in an effort to spell out exactly what he crux of the disagreement is.

Every time I have seen you reply with little jabs and petty insults, I have resisted saying going into invective. I'll still be restrained.

I ask simple questions, and you still evade a simple reply, peppering a few little jabs in as you go.

Rather than advising me to "re-read" your posts, take a step back.
I am not trying to trip you up, or insult you for your beliefs.
We disagree, and probably intractably so.

But if you are unwilling to examine the boundaries of the disagreement, then this is not going to be a respectful test of competing truth claims.

So, if your tone is going to continue thus, I am done. If you refocus on defining the scope and nature of the disagreement without the bullshit, then I can go on with the discussion.

Noe of the "wow..just wow" bullshit. None of the "Are you kidding" postures.
Either answer as an honest participant, or don't. But I am not going to play it the way you are.

[Malkyte2]

Yes, I have answered with questions, in an effort to spell out exactly what he crux of the disagreement is.

I thought it was planly clear what the arguement is. You believe in the trend that the constitution argues for the seperation of church and state, using article iv section 3 as your prime example, followed up with the 14th amendment and other letters expressing such opinions. I disagree with that assertion and or opinion.


Every time I have seen you reply with little jabs and petty insults, I have resisted saying going into invective. I'll still be restrained.

I ask simple questions, and you still evade a simple reply, peppering a few little jabs in as you go.

Please give examples. If I have done so, it has not been done intentionally. As you well know, sometimes the written word does not translate as we would hope to. And I will point out, that this is now the second time I have asked you to clarify, and you have still refused to answer my questions.


Rather than advising me to "re-read" your posts, take a step back.
I am not trying to trip you up, or insult you for your beliefs.
We disagree, and probably intractably so.

Then don't accuse me of something that is completely bogus, and from where I sit, completely in the opposite. Again, I have answered your questions to the best of my abilities. I am sorry that they were not the answers you were looking for. I have yet to get counter points on anything I have written in my last three longer posts. but even in the last few, I have answered your questions the best that I could. So I do not understand were you are coming from. Does this software change my words around once it gets posted? They look like the words I typed. So I do not understand what you are looking for.


But if you are unwilling to examine the boundaries of the disagreement, then this is not going to be a respectful test of competing truth claims.

Once again you ignore my answers. I HAVE answered this. If you are going to ignore what I write, then there is really nothing more to discuss.


So, if your tone is going to continue thus, I am done. If you refocus on defining the scope and nature of the disagreement without the bullshit, then I can go on with the discussion.

Seriously, are you even reading my posts?


Noe of the "wow..just wow" bullshit. None of the "Are you kidding" postures.
Either answer as an honest participant, or don't. But I am not going to play it the way you are.

I'm sorry you do not care for my responses. But when I read outlandish and unfounded claims such as you have made, I will express myself. Rather then focusing on the "wow... just wow" stuff, how about focusing on the parts were I HAVE answered your questions. It would provide a way to move forward.

For the third time, I will ask you to present evidence to your multitude of claims. Until then, there really is no point in continuing.

Again, I have been anwering your points, to which you have not been answering my counter points.

You are doing it again, with the current questions that I have raised.



Malkyte

[Darth Marley]

No, the core elements of disagreement are not so clear.
They would be if you were willing to take my queries at face value rather than try to project onto them where you imagine I would take your answers.

I do believe article iv section 3 is an example of a "trend" towards separation of church and state. Others think similarly.
And like disagreement over the 2nd amendment, positions on either side are well defined through history.

Skipping down past the "petty objections" and mutual suspicions of snark, and on to my questions.

If you have answered them, and I am still asking, then it means I am not getting what you have said, or I am not getting a particular point. I want additional clarity before proceeding, and I want to avoid projecting what I think you believe.

If my claims are indeed outlandish and irrational, then there are many others who persist in a similar folly. This claim though, that my beliefs, opinions, and interpretation of legal opinions and written words of the founders is "outlandish" is exactly the kind of insult I was complaining about.
I am not calling you an idiot for having faith, and I am not going to do so. I am not going to insult you for having a differing opinion.

I am trying to examine those differences, and discuss where they might meet at the boundaries without the dialog degenerating into mutual accusation slinging.

When you say that Jefferson's writings are irrelevant to your point, I bring it back up because it is relevant to my point. That should not be the stumbling block it is made to be here.

If it is fine to suggest that even if Jefferson didn't accept a divinity of Jesus, but because his background was Judeo-Christian, then this is a step back from the claim of only the written law or article matters.

The bits that have evaded me in your reply that I keep repeating are "Do you think the "wall of separation" is a one way barrier" which indeed, you may have answered in the affirmative before, but I am looking for the clarification of a simple yes or no.

And if no, I have asked about how the matter of separation of church and state might be a matter of degrees.

[Malkyte2]

No, the core elements of disagreement are not so clear.

Ok. I have taken my best shot. Then I turn the question over to you. Please tell me what you think the core elements of our disagreement are.


They would be if you were willing to take my queries at face value rather than try to project onto them where you imagine I would take your answers.

You ask me to play nice, but then you throw out little barbs like this. I have tried to answer your questions to the best of my abilities. If you have further questions about my answers, just ask me to clarify the answer and I am more then happy to do so. Don't throw other questions out there until you are sure you understand what I already wrote. I cannot know what you understand and what you don't, unless you tell me.


I do believe article iv section 3 is an example of a "trend" towards separation of church and state. Others think similarly.
And like disagreement over the 2nd amendment, positions on either side are well defined through history.

I have fully understood this from the beginning.


Skipping down past the "petty objections" and mutual suspicions of snark, and on to my questions.

Now this just seems like you do not want to play on a level playing field. You can complain, but when I bring up similar points, it has to be ignored?


If you have answered them, and I am still asking, then it means I am not getting what you have said, or I am not getting a particular point. I want additional clarity before proceeding, and I want to avoid projecting what I think you believe.

Yet you have already projected. I have no problem clarifying answers that I have already stated. If something does not make sense in my answers, ask away. Let me know what part does not make sense to you and I will try to clarify. I have no problem with that. I will add, that goes both ways.


If my claims are indeed outlandish and irrational, then there are many others who persist in a similar folly. This claim though, that my beliefs, opinions, and interpretation of legal opinions and written words of the founders is "outlandish" is exactly the kind of insult I was complaining about.
I am not calling you an idiot for having faith, and I am not going to do so. I am not going to insult you for having a differing opinion.

I honestly do not recal using the words outlandish or irrational, but I suspect that that is what you surmised from my responses. I have meerly questioned the arguements and the evidence presented for your side of the arguement. It was never meant as a personal attack, or as an insult, and apollogize if that is what was taken from it. I will add that I am a little surprised that you do not have thicker skin then this, when in a debate.

I have meerly questioned the evidence used to explain the rational at hand, and find that I don't agree with its conclusions. There is nothing sinister about it. Nor is it about personaly insults, but an exchange in differing views. If you are waiting for me to somehow say that I concur with the logic, then I am sorry to say that will most likely not happen.


I am trying to examine those differences, and discuss where they might meet at the boundaries without the dialog degenerating into mutual accusation slinging.

I have no problems with this.


When you say that Jefferson's writings are irrelevant to your point, I bring it back up because it is relevant to my point. That should not be the stumbling block it is made to be here.

If it is fine to suggest that even if Jefferson didn't accept a divinity of Jesus, but because his background was Judeo-Christian, then this is a step back from the claim of only the written law or article matters.

Okay, I can see a bit of confussion here. You are refering to two seperates points that have come under contention.

First, I stated that Jefferson's personal opinions expressed in letters cannot be legitimately held up as proof to the arguement that Article IV, truly expresses seperation of church and state as proposed by the current trend. While that may be his personaly opinion, the Article was decided upon by multiple people with multiple ideas, and I for one do not see the same intent between the two.

Second, in regards to Jefferson's degree of Christianity... was first brought up when you asked me to produce evidence to indicate that a good protion of our founding principles were based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and traditions. To this, I presented, all be it loosly, how key members of the founding fathers were indeed from Judeo-Christian backgrounds. This list included Jefferson himself, who while did not neccessarily believe in the divinity of Jesus, believed his teachings to be very important. I would say that that is fairly strong evidence that his ideals and beliefs were shaped by, both the good and the bad of Judeo-Christian beliefs and traditions. Therefore, when you asked the degree of which he was a Christian had no bearing on the point. The point was that his background in Christianity influenced his descions.

However, in my brief exploration, I also came upon facts about the activities of Jefferson during his presidency, that IMO contradict the current prevailing theory on seperation of church and state, which you have apparently completely ignored.


The bits that have evaded me in your reply that I keep repeating are "Do you think the "wall of separation" is a one way barrier" which indeed, you may have answered in the affirmative before, but I am looking for the clarification of a simple yes or no.

And if no, I have asked about how the matter of separation of church and state might be a matter of degrees.

See, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about and why I do not believe that you read my posts in there entirety. Not more then TWO posts ago, I replied to this exact question... and I quote...



Is the matter of the "one way wall" where we differ? Or is it a matter of the degree of separation?

To which my reply was...


For what its worth, I am not clear as to what you mean by a "one way wall". However, from the brief and actual replies you have given on the topic at hand, I would agree that our difference might be in the degrees of seperation.

I am unclear as to how that could be missed.

To try and clarify, which goes back to what I originally stated, is that the Constitution forbids the creation of any legal binding support of any form of religion, but does not address the simple displays of religious symbolism in and around public buildings as there is no legal base tied to them. There is no one religion legally favored over any other, and that all religions(in theory anyway) would have equal right to display whatever they want. I say in theory, because the predominant displays come from Christian groups. But that does not preclude any other religion from doing the same thing. They just choose not to in most cases.


Malkyte

[Darth Marley]

No, I will have to just give up. Time and time again, I have invited you to just stop it, and have a discussion.

I'm not going to play this game.

You might want to think that in addition to having religion symbols in public life, the way people behave are also effective "religious advertisments'" for their professed faiths.

You can call it a win, but tarnish the image of the religion you profess a bit.

[Malkyte2]

No, I will have to just give up. Time and time again, I have invited you to just stop it, and have a discussion.

I'm not going to play this game.

You might want to think that in addition to having religion symbols in public life, the way people behave are also effective "religious advertisments'" for their professed faiths.

You can call it a win, but tarnish the image of the religion you profess a bit.

Whatever! :rolleyes:

I have tried in good faith to answer your questions and present counter arguements, which in all of the post you have ignored and simply turned it to an attempted onesided complaint-fest.

I have apollogized, I have offered clarifications and even invited further clarification upon knowing what it is you are not clear on.

Your response? I am not playing the game?

Sir, you were the only one playing! ;)


Malkyte

[Malkyte2]

You know, I was rereading my comments to see if there was anything I could have said differently, and the answer is yes. It might have been a little more clearer, I don't know. All you needed to do was ask.

But I did find were I used the word, "Outlandish" and it just further underscored to me, how little attention you have paid to anything I said. I used that word to describe your perceived "Jabs" and "insults" that I was supposedly throwing at you, without providing any examples when asked, NOT at your opinion on the subject matter we were discussing.

Just sad.

Apology rescinded.


Malkyte