One reason for the bill of rights is to protect the minority from being oppressed by the majority. Imagine you are a protestant, and the majority of americans are catholic. Would you want your government creating laws that are favored by catholics and is against your religious views?
Is the separation of church and state a lie?
- Thread starter ceetee
- Start date
- Status
One reason for the bill of rights is to protect the minority from being oppressed by the majority. Imagine you are a protestant, and the majority of americans are catholic. Would you want your government creating laws that are favored by catholics and is against your religious views?
Harris Quote
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin"
Glad to know what Ms. Harris thinks of electing someone like, say, me, a US-born conservative Jew, to public office.
For the record, I am fine w/ Christian traditions, prayer being just one of many examples, having a place in US government proceedings, traditions, and laws. I personally believe having the faithful in government is a good thing as well (I also believe having agnostics and people of other belief systems is good too). Where Ms. Harris displays her unfettered ignorance however is in somehow assuming that only Christians can be faithful.
What she couldn't be communcating anymore clearly is "Americans who love their country and happen to be Jews, Hindus, Buddists, agnostics, or Muslims.... kiss off."
The lady has a train wreck of a brain, if she has one at all.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin"
Glad to know what Ms. Harris thinks of electing someone like, say, me, a US-born conservative Jew, to public office.
For the record, I am fine w/ Christian traditions, prayer being just one of many examples, having a place in US government proceedings, traditions, and laws. I personally believe having the faithful in government is a good thing as well (I also believe having agnostics and people of other belief systems is good too). Where Ms. Harris displays her unfettered ignorance however is in somehow assuming that only Christians can be faithful.
What she couldn't be communcating anymore clearly is "Americans who love their country and happen to be Jews, Hindus, Buddists, agnostics, or Muslims.... kiss off."
The lady has a train wreck of a brain, if she has one at all.
The Founding Fathers (LAAA!!!) wanted Christianity integrated with the law of the land?
Don't make me laugh. By explicitly rejecting an established Church they were making an incredibly radical anti-clerical anti-Church-in-politics statement. Every other European country had some sort of established Church. We didn't. The Mayflower Compact? Massachusetts was largely theocratic. Church law and secular law were darned near one in the same. That went away after Independence. Were some of the Founders religious? Certainly. Did they talk about religion privately? Of course. But look at what they didn't put into law. Any place else in the world would have mentioned G-d or Isa bin Maryam at least once somewhere in the document. There would have been some request for the mercy and support of the Creator.
None. Nothing. Nada.
This wasn't an accident. The Founders understood just how poisonous religion as part of the State could be. So they completely left it out of the important founding documents of the Nation. If you take a look at the Florida wing nut Rep. Harris you will see why. I quote from the Seattle PI:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003226852_harris26.html
...
I don't even want to think of what she wants for radical Jew who is married to a mixed-race mystical Sufi Muslim. It probably involves the traditional Christian fixin's like the auto da fe and the strapado.
Don't make me laugh. By explicitly rejecting an established Church they were making an incredibly radical anti-clerical anti-Church-in-politics statement. Every other European country had some sort of established Church. We didn't. The Mayflower Compact? Massachusetts was largely theocratic. Church law and secular law were darned near one in the same. That went away after Independence. Were some of the Founders religious? Certainly. Did they talk about religion privately? Of course. But look at what they didn't put into law. Any place else in the world would have mentioned G-d or Isa bin Maryam at least once somewhere in the document. There would have been some request for the mercy and support of the Creator.
None. Nothing. Nada.
This wasn't an accident. The Founders understood just how poisonous religion as part of the State could be. So they completely left it out of the important founding documents of the Nation. If you take a look at the Florida wing nut Rep. Harris you will see why. I quote from the Seattle PI:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003226852_harris26.html
...
I don't even want to think of what she wants for radical Jew who is married to a mixed-race mystical Sufi Muslim. It probably involves the traditional Christian fixin's like the auto da fe and the strapado.
"MrZ,
The SCOTUS has long since ruled that "respecting" would include govt sanctioned religion. Nice try...but that's not a compelling legal argument."
Hence my comment in re bastardization by nazi's in black robes...
It is written in black and white in our constitution...
While some idiots on the "supreme court" may decide that...
"Thou shalt NOT touch fire lest ye be burned"
...means it's O.K. to touch fire, it's not.
That's one of the many problems in our country today. I'm sorry, but SOME of us DON'T need a schmuck in a black robe to "interpret" written english for us...
Bottom line: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT...
The SCOTUS has long since ruled that "respecting" would include govt sanctioned religion. Nice try...but that's not a compelling legal argument."
Hence my comment in re bastardization by nazi's in black robes...
It is written in black and white in our constitution...
While some idiots on the "supreme court" may decide that...
"Thou shalt NOT touch fire lest ye be burned"
...means it's O.K. to touch fire, it's not.
That's one of the many problems in our country today. I'm sorry, but SOME of us DON'T need a schmuck in a black robe to "interpret" written english for us...
Bottom line: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT...
DBabsJr
Member
Maybe I'm wrong, but a lot of info that I find about the founding fathers leads me to believe that they were Deists and not Christians. In Jefferson's case, fiercely non-Christian and anti-established religion even. The very act of rebelling against England may be in violation of 1 Peter 2:13 - "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
I only have the Internet to go by, but some interesting quotes:
He told John Adams that he was rescuing the Philosophy of Jesus and the "pure principles which he taught," from the "artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power for themselves." After having selected from the evangelists "the very words only of Jesus," he believed "there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."
"In every country and 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. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes" - Jefferson
I only have the Internet to go by, but some interesting quotes:
He told John Adams that he was rescuing the Philosophy of Jesus and the "pure principles which he taught," from the "artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power for themselves." After having selected from the evangelists "the very words only of Jesus," he believed "there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."
"In every country and 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. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes" - Jefferson
griz
Member
I made that statement in the context of the topic, which was Ms. Harris' comment that "God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws". My point was that this country was founded by men, and although they may have believed in a cretor, that creator stood aside as the DoI was written. If God wanted the US to be a nation of religious laws as Harris suggest, surely he could have arranged that from the begining.
Sorry for not explaining this earlier. By the time I got back to this thread it had become the typical argument about how much the gov can endorse one religion without it being the state religion.
saltydog
Member
I'm kinda curious what we are electing now!
Very few "decent" people in office now!
How clear does this have to be?
Article VI of the Constitution states:
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.
Strange language if the framers wanted ANY official role for religion in the government, let alone any favored sect.
K
Article VI of the Constitution states:
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.
Strange language if the framers wanted ANY official role for religion in the government, let alone any favored sect.
K
Helmetcase
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 706
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
For the guy who asked for a citation. It can't be any clearer what the SCOTUS has ruled (and not just recently) about separation of church and state.
Meantime, nicely done Kentak.
Guys, use your ****ing brains. One of the most common anti-2A arguments from the Brady idiots is that the 2A protects our right to have a Natl Guard or the right of the militia to have guns, not us. Of course, we know this to be BS, because IF THE FOUNDERS WANTED THE 2A TO SAY "THE MILITIA CAN HAVE ARMS", IT WOULD HAVE FLIPPIN SAID THAT!!!
The same is true for religion. Guys, if they wanted us to have a role for religion in govt, they had all the opportunity in the world to say so and write it into our founding documents. IF THEY WANTED US TO ENDORSE CHRISTIANITY VIA GOVT, THEY'D HAVE SAID THAT.
They didn't. Get over it.
Do you really want to get rid of our secular govt, one that tolerates all religions and doesn't endorse one over another? If so, you're working counter to the explicit wishes of the founding fathers, and I'll look forward to fighting you at every turn.
For the guy who asked for a citation. It can't be any clearer what the SCOTUS has ruled (and not just recently) about separation of church and state.
Meantime, nicely done Kentak.
Guys, use your ****ing brains. One of the most common anti-2A arguments from the Brady idiots is that the 2A protects our right to have a Natl Guard or the right of the militia to have guns, not us. Of course, we know this to be BS, because IF THE FOUNDERS WANTED THE 2A TO SAY "THE MILITIA CAN HAVE ARMS", IT WOULD HAVE FLIPPIN SAID THAT!!!
The same is true for religion. Guys, if they wanted us to have a role for religion in govt, they had all the opportunity in the world to say so and write it into our founding documents. IF THEY WANTED US TO ENDORSE CHRISTIANITY VIA GOVT, THEY'D HAVE SAID THAT.
They didn't. Get over it.
The government is simply a body of authority we elect into office to protect our rights and keep our nation sovereign. It doesn't need to endorse any particular religion to do that. Our govt DOES reflect our values and the values of the electorate, because if it didn't, we'd get rid of it.
Do you really want to get rid of our secular govt, one that tolerates all religions and doesn't endorse one over another? If so, you're working counter to the explicit wishes of the founding fathers, and I'll look forward to fighting you at every turn.
GoRon
Member
My point is that the government IS endorsing one over another. Materialistic or secular humanism.
The constitution does not provide for a secular, materialistic, "humanistic" world view to hold supremacy over all other religions. That is in fact what the separation of church and state advocates are striving to install. They want their world view to reign supreme. They want their high priests to be the final authority (judges and scientists).
I guess we need a working definition of "religion". You have an extremely broad definition, where sex, drugs, and rock and roll could be a religion. For you, any object, idea, thought, could probably qualify as a religion. Others have a narrower definition. No point arguing if we can't agree on a definition first.
Not the first time I've seen this type of argument though, that of expanding a definition to suit one's purpose. Creationists call evolution just another religion, or redefine creationism to be intelligent design and say it's not a religious concept. Luckily the federal judge shot that down in Dover.
Helmetcase
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 706
Exactly. I don't think you can argue that the absence of an endorsement of a religion makes secular humanism a religion.
We're not suggesting secularism to be in any way religious, largely because there's no element of faith involved. We're simply saying that no particular religion--be it Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Islam, whatever--shouldn't be enshrined as the guiding principle of govt or recognized as the official, nor receive any endorsements.
The absence of religion isn't a religion. I'm simply saying--and the SCOTUS has tended to agree with me--that on the question of religion, the govt shall remain neutral.
We're not suggesting secularism to be in any way religious, largely because there's no element of faith involved. We're simply saying that no particular religion--be it Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Islam, whatever--shouldn't be enshrined as the guiding principle of govt or recognized as the official, nor receive any endorsements.
The absence of religion isn't a religion. I'm simply saying--and the SCOTUS has tended to agree with me--that on the question of religion, the govt shall remain neutral.
gc70
Member
Helmetcase is right. The Constitution prohibits a government-endorsed or sanctioned religion. If the founders had wanted to say that anything remotely associated with any religion (i.e. calling that holiday in late December "Christmas") was barred, they would have said that.
Since Jefferson has been quoted so often in this thread, here are some of his thoughts on how "separate" government and religion must be from A Letter To Doctor Thomas Cooper, 2 November 1822 (Ford 12: 270-1):
Last edited:
gc70
Member
The problem with secular humanism is that is also has its dogma. It has its own morality that it wishes to impose. Never did our Founders believe or hope to not have people with religious conscience be part of government. If so they would be disqualilfied. You hear it all the time now that so and so beliefs can not be tolerated because they are based or come from their religion. That is just plain stupid because the only way that thought could ever be carried out is if all religion is wiped out of peoples minds and replaced with guess what "Secular humanism". Both are belief systems. They are opposite each other. Plus liberals only see separation of church and state one way. How many times have you heard the liberal press say anything about the religious so called "Social Justice Gospel". They think it is just fine to quote Bible verses that they can twist to support a welfare state. Where is the separation there. How about the anit-death penalty religious nuts. They also are using their religon to push their policy. But that is O:K. Hypocrites one and all. The idea is a fruitless and misued legal fiction. How many times does Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Jim Wallis and like minded persons quote out of The Book of James to preach to everyone about how we should use the force of Government to give to Ceaser what it Gods and to say the government needs to do Gods and the Churches work to take care of the poor after all if we are a Christian Nation then we should do Gods work by FORCE that my friend is true Charity. I do not think that is what Jesus meant. I think it is a LIE.
"Guys, use your ****ing brains."
I agree. Let's.
1st amendment...again:
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.
Based on the first amendment, written in ENGLISH, congress can MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Look at those words again...MAKE NO LAW. MAKE NO LAW does NOT mean PRACTICE. MAKING A LAW holds ALL Americans accountable to abide by that law. PRACTICING holds NO ONE accountable.
Based on the first amendment, congress shall MAKE NO LAW, prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof. This doesn't specify OR exclude ANY American citizen, in ANY capacity. It is a blanket statement that applies to ALL Americans.
So, as you so aptly put it..." use your ****ing brains."
Congress CAN'T pass a law respecting an establishment of religion, however, Congress CAN practice a religion, and ANY law congress passes to prohibit the free exercise thereof IS unconstitutional.
"Guys, if they wanted us to have a role for religion in govt, they had all the opportunity in the world to say so and write it into our founding documents. IF THEY WANTED US TO ENDORSE CHRISTIANITY VIA GOVT, THEY'D HAVE SAID THAT.
They didn't. Get over it."
Guys, if they wanted our government not to PRACTICE any religion, they had all the opportunity in the world to say so and write it into our founding documents. IF THEY WANTED US TO COMPLETELY EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE FROM OUR GOVT, THEY'D HAVE SAID THAT.
They didn't. Get over it.
When congress, or any other government agency, tries to pass a law making an "OFFICIAL" religion, than I will have a problem with that. When congressmen, or any other government agency, try to decorate their place of work with christmas trees, or conduct a prayer before session, I never will.
Once again, it is a group of idiots in black robes that have distorted and bastardized a constitution that is written in plain english for all to see.
I agree. Let's.
1st amendment...again:
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.
Based on the first amendment, written in ENGLISH, congress can MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Look at those words again...MAKE NO LAW. MAKE NO LAW does NOT mean PRACTICE. MAKING A LAW holds ALL Americans accountable to abide by that law. PRACTICING holds NO ONE accountable.
Based on the first amendment, congress shall MAKE NO LAW, prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof. This doesn't specify OR exclude ANY American citizen, in ANY capacity. It is a blanket statement that applies to ALL Americans.
So, as you so aptly put it..." use your ****ing brains."
Congress CAN'T pass a law respecting an establishment of religion, however, Congress CAN practice a religion, and ANY law congress passes to prohibit the free exercise thereof IS unconstitutional.
"Guys, if they wanted us to have a role for religion in govt, they had all the opportunity in the world to say so and write it into our founding documents. IF THEY WANTED US TO ENDORSE CHRISTIANITY VIA GOVT, THEY'D HAVE SAID THAT.
They didn't. Get over it."
Guys, if they wanted our government not to PRACTICE any religion, they had all the opportunity in the world to say so and write it into our founding documents. IF THEY WANTED US TO COMPLETELY EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE FROM OUR GOVT, THEY'D HAVE SAID THAT.
They didn't. Get over it.
When congress, or any other government agency, tries to pass a law making an "OFFICIAL" religion, than I will have a problem with that. When congressmen, or any other government agency, try to decorate their place of work with christmas trees, or conduct a prayer before session, I never will.
Once again, it is a group of idiots in black robes that have distorted and bastardized a constitution that is written in plain english for all to see.
GoRon
Member
Considering that the US is considered one of the most religious and freest nations on earth you may want to rethink your premiss.
Banning prayer at commencement addresses, removing the 10 commandments from government buildings, purging all references to the religious nature of the culture during our founding (unless it is fanatics burning witches) from school textbooks and on and on is not a neutral stance.
It is rewriting history and social engineering using the power of the government to enforce a secular world view.
Just a data point...
"In G-d we trust" came in during the Civil War (also known as the War of Southern Aggression
). "One Nation, Under G-d" was a product of lobbying efforts by the Knights of Columbus during the Eisenhower Administration. The rationale in both cases was that the enemy of the moment, rebellious slave-owners or infidel commies, would be scared or run away or something if we declared the Almighty was on our side.
Now, let's consider "secular humanism". It's a nice piece of sophistry, lies and self-righteousness on the part of the closet theocrats. They use the technique of the Big Lie, Soviet or Nazi style, to keep repeating something that is simply not true long enough that the ignorant start to believe it. Their goal is for people to believe that having no religion is having a religion. Thus not preferring a religion or upholding vague principles of human dignity and rights is establishment of a religion so we should support the real one, Fundamentalist Protestantism, instead.
Where are the secular humanists' churches? Where are their scriptures? Where are their liturgy, their clergy, their religious practices or any of the other things that make a religion, even one as atheistic as La Vey's Satanists? The answer is "Nowhere". Every time the religious fanatics point to something they claim is an example of "secular humanist" religion you will find that at least as many so-called secular humanists (and almost none of the targets of their bile so identify) don't believe or practice it.
It's quite simply a lie told by the theocrats so that they can promote their own religion as the State Church.
"In G-d we trust" came in during the Civil War (also known as the War of Southern Aggression
). "One Nation, Under G-d" was a product of lobbying efforts by the Knights of Columbus during the Eisenhower Administration. The rationale in both cases was that the enemy of the moment, rebellious slave-owners or infidel commies, would be scared or run away or something if we declared the Almighty was on our side.Now, let's consider "secular humanism". It's a nice piece of sophistry, lies and self-righteousness on the part of the closet theocrats. They use the technique of the Big Lie, Soviet or Nazi style, to keep repeating something that is simply not true long enough that the ignorant start to believe it. Their goal is for people to believe that having no religion is having a religion. Thus not preferring a religion or upholding vague principles of human dignity and rights is establishment of a religion so we should support the real one, Fundamentalist Protestantism, instead.
Where are the secular humanists' churches? Where are their scriptures? Where are their liturgy, their clergy, their religious practices or any of the other things that make a religion, even one as atheistic as La Vey's Satanists? The answer is "Nowhere". Every time the religious fanatics point to something they claim is an example of "secular humanist" religion you will find that at least as many so-called secular humanists (and almost none of the targets of their bile so identify) don't believe or practice it.
It's quite simply a lie told by the theocrats so that they can promote their own religion as the State Church.
"You hear it all the time now that so and so beliefs can not be tolerated because they are based or come from their religion." I agree. Ms. Harris just made such a statement. She seems to believe Jews (just as one example) should not be elected because they will "legislate sin".
For all those that might like to see closer intertwining of church and state and so stridently oppose "secular humanism", what do you say to increasing the practice of Buddhist customs in our govt? How about Muslim customs? Jewish ones?
You have to be in favor of all these, if your sole enemy is "secular humanism". Or, for those in favor of less spearation, is what you are driving against not only secular humanism alone, but any religion that is not Christianity, like seems to be Ms. Harris's stance?
For all those that might like to see closer intertwining of church and state and so stridently oppose "secular humanism", what do you say to increasing the practice of Buddhist customs in our govt? How about Muslim customs? Jewish ones?
You have to be in favor of all these, if your sole enemy is "secular humanism". Or, for those in favor of less spearation, is what you are driving against not only secular humanism alone, but any religion that is not Christianity, like seems to be Ms. Harris's stance?
The government is not "an expression" of the people. The government is (or should be) a group of paperpushers charged with carrying out the tasks necessary to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty" to all Americans. Period.
They're not paid to promote their morals or religious beliefs on me or anybody else. That they choose to, and are able to, points to the fact that America actually allows more freedom to her citizens than anywhere else in the world...
Ian, can you point out some of these places that have no religious dogma and are wonderful models of freedom and liberty? I can't think of any.
Whenever those of you who are anti-religion see the government mandating an established religion, you come tell me and I will fight against it as hard as you. Until then, someone praying at a football game or mentioning God in a speech shouldn't even be an issue.
Whenever those of you who are anti-religion see the government mandating an established religion, you come tell me and I will fight against it as hard as you. Until then, someone praying at a football game or mentioning God in a speech shouldn't even be an issue.
This is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this argument. If this country had been founded on Muslim, Buddhist, or Jewish principles and the majority of the people belonged to one of these religions, then more power to them.
I think a lot of you need to separate your opinon of the proper place of religion in government from the Constitutional arguments. The Constitution says that Congress cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion. That's all it says.
If you wanted a stop light at an intersection in your town, how would you go about getting one installed? There's no doubt in my mind that, in today's legal climate, with enough money and support you could get the Supreme Court to say that the Constitution guarantees stoplights. No doubt at all.
But is that the right way to do it? Heck no it's not. Every time you twist the meaning of the document, you cheapen its real guarantees, until, oh, I don't know -- an entire amendment might be "interpreted" right out of it.
Instead, and I think this is common sense, what you should do is explain to the appropriate authorities why there should be a stoplight there. You don't say, "you have to do this!" you say, "you should, and here's why."
There's been a long and terrible campaign by a legal elite to force their views on society through the Constitution in a number of areas, just off the top of my head: gun control, abortion, irreligion, homosexuality, affirmative action, the list goes on and on. Don't fall into the their trap just because you agree with their stance on one issue.
If you wanted a stop light at an intersection in your town, how would you go about getting one installed? There's no doubt in my mind that, in today's legal climate, with enough money and support you could get the Supreme Court to say that the Constitution guarantees stoplights. No doubt at all.
But is that the right way to do it? Heck no it's not. Every time you twist the meaning of the document, you cheapen its real guarantees, until, oh, I don't know -- an entire amendment might be "interpreted" right out of it.
Instead, and I think this is common sense, what you should do is explain to the appropriate authorities why there should be a stoplight there. You don't say, "you have to do this!" you say, "you should, and here's why."
There's been a long and terrible campaign by a legal elite to force their views on society through the Constitution in a number of areas, just off the top of my head: gun control, abortion, irreligion, homosexuality, affirmative action, the list goes on and on. Don't fall into the their trap just because you agree with their stance on one issue.
- Status