Separation of Church and State

It's not even up for debate Silverchild I do believe that to everyone it is quite obvious I'm right. The Supreme Court "invented" laws that never existed. Historically the government behaved a certain way with respect to religion. Then one fine day in the late 1940s the courts decided to change all that.

The amazing thing?

Unlike before, where there were amendments to the Constitution which the courts had to now interpret everything taking those into account, there was NEVER any amendments to the constitution changing the nature of religion within the United States.

It is a perfect, classic, and EVIL, example of legislation from the bench as you put it. I prefer to continue to call it judicial tyranny.

So you won't intelligently debate the fact the US Constitution has not been amended by the courts have invented a philosophy based on nothing? No one in the entire history of the USA has used the term "Separation of Church and State" until 1947. In 1887 it was STILL not that exact phrase. And we all know that Jefferson never implied religion and government should be wholly removed he himself was religious just not dogmatic.

Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Where is your debate? Cam and I have both given you examples where the SUPREME COURT has defined seperation of church and statee, all you have done is give examples of why you dont like their interpretation.


Seperation Of church and state was THE EXACT Phrase was orignially sited By Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury baptists.



There is no debate if you insist on using YOUR beliefs against MY facts.

Well, I like Washington a bit more than Jefferson, he did quite as much for America, and he said this:

"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Well, I like Washington a bit more than Jefferson, he did quite as much for America, and he said this:

Hey, Washington was an incredible guy -- a great general, patriot and first president. Nah....Washington was awesome. :headbang:

I have stated it so clearly it is becomming SO annoying to restate it.

The US Constitution was never amended since 1789 regarding the separation of church and state.

SO

Where does the SCOTUS have the right to "change" the interpretation of separation of church and state since 1789?

Oh ****...I do believe this calls for vulgar language. What are you going to say to this rugonnacry?

Or are you just going to cry?

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

That's right it's all just a conspiracy theory by the anti Christ to uproot your religion...












wait for it.....

Silverchild, That is at least the second time you've made or acknowledged this statement as true. It would appear you are being sarcastic. However, when dealing with issues that mean something, we should be very careful about what we say. When we acknowledge something as true that we know to be untrue we run the risk of having someone believe we think it is true. It could also be that we use sarcasm to mask the truth by acknowledging what we are doing. In the case above, since you have acknowledged this twice, it would appear you are acknowledging truth and not being sarcastic.

Right here slick...


Main article: History of the Supreme Court of the United States
The history of the Supreme Court is frequently described in terms of the Chief Justices who have presided over it.

Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.

That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison), and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

Right

Um no, they do not have authority to legislate from the bench at all and there's no justification for it, not even from a pitiful welp such as yourself. The fact you are trying to justify it is pathetic.

:-) Joy of Joy's, my Congressman wrote back!

Dear Mr. Passmore:



Thank you for your letter regarding Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc (WL 1803960). I understand your concerns.



The funding for faith-based centers within federal agencies, at issue in Hien, was authorized exclusively by executive orders from the President. Congress did not enact any laws appropriating money to the centers or their activities. The faith-based centers were funded through general Executive Branch appropriations.



In a 5/4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs in Hein were not in a position to sue the government for funding the faith-based centers, because the funds were not appropriated by Congress. I agree that the government should not appropriate tax-dollars to promote a particular religion. I support the separation of church and state, a fundamental principal of our nation. However, if a faith-based organization competes on equal footing with non-sectarian social service organizations in order to provide a given social service, such as substance abuse treatment or child care, then such organizations should be able to obtain aid to offer such services on a non-sectarian basis. But, that money must not be used to proselytize and promote a religion. It must only be used to provide a non-sectarian social service as would a non-faith based organization.



Thank you for your letter. I appreciate your concern. Please keep in touch.







Sincerely,

Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON