Separation of Church and State

@The Last Cathedral,

I agree with you 100%. Untill they can get an amendment in the Constitution that states so, there is no such thing as Sep of Church and State.

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

The government, and many other employers, retain employed Chaplains from many different religions to offer services to their employees.

That doesn't mean tax dollars should fund independent churches

there is a big difference

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;24045 wrote:

I agree with you 100%. Untill they can get an amendment in the Constitution that states so, there is no such thing as Sep of Church and State.

Alright,

your "Napster Defense" (that's not what the law is because I don't think it's that way) against sep of church and state is ignorant, it's time I disarm you...

educational preface

The supreme law of the land is the US constitution, period. By law it is not your interpretation, or mine, which counts for anything. The law can only be interpreted by the courts, the highest of these is the Supreme Court.

That being said the Supreme Courts "opinion" is the law as officially interpreted from the US Constitution. Everything else is opinion and therefore irrelevant

US Supreme Court Rulings

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

in conclusion I would surmise that you need further education on this subject

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

Christians must ask themselves which is more important -- Christianity or Constitutionalism? I know....this comes across as civic heresy. Nonetheless, it's an essential question Christians must answer for themselves, first as individuals, then as a national community in the United States. What if American society and its political systems become decidedly pagan, perhaps even violently so? Should Christians still support them? I say no, they shouldn't. In the past, American Christians enjoyed the best of both worlds --a strong Christian culture, and a political system that promoted and protected freedom. It was easy to be loyal to both Christianity and American political philosophy. But, what if that philosophy changes, and turns against Christianity? In the final analysis, which is more important -- Christianity or America's civic religion? I say Christianity, and I say it without hesitation.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

Religious Tyranny tastes no better when flavored with Jesus, our founding father knew this

2 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;24067 wrote:

Religious Tyranny tastes no better when flavored with Jesus, our founding father knew this

If that was an original quote Cameron... well fukking done.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

So none of you can address the simple fact that the US Government pays the salaries of ordained ministers and priests? No one at all will address this simple fact? How can you justify arguments of "separation of church and state" based on constitutionalism (which it is not) since obviously that is a big mix between church and state. Separation of church and state is merely applied according to beliefs of the Judiciary and public. It is not a constitutional founding principle. The only thing the constitution does is prohibit the establishment of religion. And then, the states still have the right to establish religions of their own (technically Utah could establish the Mormon church if it wanted, but this would be seen as a bad political move).

The last state to disestablish their religion was Massachussetts in 1833.

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

Also I would reiterate that the First Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit religious involvement in the United States Government (afterall there are Chaplains to the Congress et al.)

It prevents the US Government from creating a "national religion". Like the Anglican Church of the United Kingdom.

But it did not extend to the state level, states did in fact have established religions of their own until that practice was deemed unpopular.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;24061 wrote:

Alright,

your "Napster Defense" (that's not what the law is because I don't think it's that way) against sep of church and state is ignorant, it's time I disarm you...

educational preface

The supreme law of the land is the US constitution, period. By law it is not your interpretation, or mine, which counts for anything. The law can only be interpreted by the courts, the highest of these is the Supreme Court.

That being said the Supreme Courts "opinion" is the law as officially interpreted from the US Constitution. Everything else is opinion and therefore irrelevant

US Supreme Court Rulings

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

in conclusion I would surmise that you need further education on this subject

YOu wouldn't be the first person to give this argument. SCOTUS's job is to give opinions, opinions can and often are wrong, that and opinions can be overturned. You guys keep saying it's against the Constitution, yet there is not one word of what you say in there, you are refering to an opinion. I say again, there is no such thing as Sep of Church and State in our Constution. Right out of the box you take the original statement from Jefferson and use it out of context. And then you change what he originally said, which was "a Wall of Separation" not Sep of Church and State?

Quote:

"unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion."

Where is that unconstitutional? I thought is was unconstitutional to sponsor a specific religion?

Quote:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

Since when? The Constitution says Congress shall make no laws, it says nothing of government or the people?

Quote:

there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Keyword "excessive" so in there opinion they allow some entanglements just so long as they are not "excessive," Hmmmmmm?

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

The Last Cathedral;24298 wrote:

So none of you can address the simple fact that the US Government pays the salaries of ordained ministers and priests? No one at all will address this simple fact? How can you justify arguments of "separation of church and state" based on constitutionalism (which it is not) since obviously that is a big mix between church and state. Separation of church and state is merely applied according to beliefs of the Judiciary and public. It is not a constitutional founding principle. The only thing the constitution does is prohibit the establishment of religion. And then, the states still have the right to establish religions of their own (technically Utah could establish the Mormon church if it wanted, but this would be seen as a bad political move).

The last state to disestablish their religion was Massachussetts in 1833.

How could they disestablish a religion if they are prohibited in the first place, I guess Sep of church and state wasn't around back then huh, LOL.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

Separation of Church and state was never around, it was an opinion expressed in a letter from Jefferson, nothing more. After the Civil War the court began to make rulings on the constitution that exhibited Jefferson's views but it really didn't pick up until women could vote.

Women voting precipitated no less than:

Prohibition of liquor
Prohibition of gambling
Anti-smoking laws
Anti-religious activism
Planned-Parenthood and Abortion rights

Basically, I would never argue that universal suffrage is wrong, but certainly the women in the United States have been a devestating opinion within the US. It doesn't take a genius to see the problems caused by the various prohibitions and abortion.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

Also notice none of those rulings by the Supreme Court occurred before the 1930s. That's a big gap between 1776.

2 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;24305 wrote:

YOu wouldn't be the first person to give this argument. SCOTUS's job is to give opinions, opinions can and often are wrong, that and opinions can be overturned.

You Fail at US Government 101

the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Their verdicts and opinions are the law defined and cannot be overturned by Congress or the President.

If a new law is passed, say a constitutional amendment regarding separation of church and state then the SC can re review and make a new decision based on the new laws.

and if you think the opinion of the Supreme Court is wrong, then your being Anti American because they are the highest voice in deciding what is right, and that includes your preacher.

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

The Last Cathedral;24310 wrote:

Also notice none of those rulings by the Supreme Court occurred before the 1930s. That's a big gap between 1776.

by that measure should we re legalize slavery? The courts in 1776 said slavery was legal, so did the courts in the 1800's pre civil war. It changed after Congress amended the US Constitution. That makes the US Constitution different then it was in 1776, should we do away with that too?

If you follow you're logic path you'll see it makes no sense whatsoever.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;24311 wrote:

You Fail at US Government 101

the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Their verdicts and opinions are the law defined and cannot be overturned by Congress or the President.

If a new law is passed, say a constitutional amendment regarding separation of church and state then the SC can re review and make a new decision based on the new laws.

and if you think the opinion of the Supreme Court is wrong, then your being Anti American because they are the highest voice in deciding what is right, and that includes your preacher.

Quote:

Their verdicts and opinions are the law defined and cannot be overturned by Congress or the President.

They can over turn there own decision if the case is revisited.

Quote:

If a new law is passed, say a constitutional amendment regarding separation of church and state then the SC can re review and make a new decision based on the new laws.

Then get it ammended, untill then it says nothing of the sort.

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

Good point, Slavery ended after an amendment to the Constitution. I don't see a change in opinion on religion by the same Constitutional Method of altering the Constitution.

This is what's called Judicial Tyranny and it is a big problem for Constitutional Lawyers since the courts have the power to amend the constitution without a legal amendment process through "reinterpretation" of what the Constitution means.

Theoretically the SCotUS could turn the US Constitution into mush.

For this reason the SCotUS is only limited to interpreting the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended. Any further changes requires amending the US Constitution. This is why the "fine line between Church and State" is almost never negotiated at the federal level and NEVER delt with concerning states involving the federal level except the one instance of Chief Justice Robert Moore.

And that wasn't a good intervention. It was brought up by 3 Georgian lawyers and involved a district Judge whose ruling was considered very controversial, the SCOTUS was not going to take that case for the very reason it likes to stay out of that mess.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;24313 wrote:

They can over turn there own decision if the case is revisited.

Then get it amended, until then it says nothing of the sort.

yes they can and sometimes do, but generally do not. Even if they did until that day there last ruling is law, period, either that or you're promoting breaking the law.

It does say something of the sort THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT DOES, until there is an amendment Separation of Church and State is Law, regardless of anybodies opinion, to include yours.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

The Last Cathedral;24314 wrote:

This is what's called Judicial Tyranny

no it's called "Legislating from the Bench"

I'm done, the both of you need further education on this

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

Legislating from the bench aka Judicial Tyranny, please look up the meaning of "synonym". I don't appreciate someone addressing vocabulary or terminology but ignoring the foundations of the argument meaning the fact that:

You argued that Slavery ended.

I argued it ended because of amendment to the constitution.

Now considering the US Constitution has not been amended with respect to the First Amendment; there is no justification for a change in opinion of Church and State as from that of the Founding Fathers.

What say you to the fact that States had established religions in the early 1800s? Obviously the Founding Fathers didn't care.

1 Reply

Separation of Church and State

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know