Separation of State and Church?

How your tax money is spent is determined in the voting booth. You vote for your representative.

The separation of church and state is the founding principle in the protection of religious freedom as provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution; and, moreover, the Supreme Court has so interpreted the Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled:

"The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the 'establishment of religion' clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, quoted with approval by this Court, in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730: 'The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasions of the civil authority.'

"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. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." [footnotes omitted] Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al., 330 U.S. 1, pp. 15,16 (1947).

How do you get that voting for a representative is voting on how your money is spent... That would be more like shooting pool with a cane pole..

Consider Ren, that we used to have one representative for every thirty thousand when we had very little of resources, little technology, and not one major river on the East Coast, bridged... Now having much more ability to afford good government we have far less of government, one rep from deliberately divided districts at a ratio of one rep to over 600K... That is the single greatest reason for bad government, that so many of us are denied representation of our choice in order to make parties powerful at our expense... The power of my representative makes him powerful, and a target for corruption... It does not make certain my money is spent morally or fairly...

Can you offer one good reason why we are denied representation at the same rate as those people first made the constitution law??? Certainly there was a loop hole there for the unscurpulous to take advantage of, but if they had been men, they would not have used it, but corrected it... The house should be representative of the people, and now it is designed to deny representation... My rep does not represent me... If yours represents you I would suggest: not well... It is likely that a rep of thirty thousand may have at one time met each of them, comes from the same small area, shares their religion, and their concerns, and their conditions... He would be too cheap to buy if his virtue were worth anything to him since his vote would only be one of many.. In addititon, it is possible for the reps of a state to do double duty, and also be the representatives in their state legeslatures... Representative government should be representative, and the founding fathers had the right idea... Too bad they left a loop hole for all the rats to climb through...

The establisment clause has not limited the power of the churches, but made them more powerful... They are beyond the control of the people, but government is not beyond their control... And the effect is that reason is denied as a force of government, and government being controlled so much by religion does not plan for the future, nor anticipate it and try to avoid it pitfalls, but stumbles forth blind to danger and trusting to faith...

Those who accept religion in all its tenents should be bared from government, and the religious should pay their taxes to enjoy their freedom, and trust to God in their own lives, and stay our of the affairs of the rational who must suffer their ignorance and failures... Goverment founded out of the values of the enlightenment has no place for the magic and mojo of a bygone age... It must be one or the other, and I suggest that it follow reasonable and accept only the reasonable into its number... It is no less than with capitalism which is another religion altogether with its unseen hands and its mysterious cycle of investment and profit... If no one can control it, it should not control government; but now it is made the task of government to assist capital in raping the people, and to save it from destruction when it cannot destroy the people enough to survive itself... Where is it written that the government must keep the economy on life supports when it should be the economy which supports government???...

To give the churches tax breaks and to allow their everlasting meddling in the affairs of government and their nonstop assault upon our right is stupid on stupid... We cannot let these people govern us... How many of them can govern their own avarice or sexuality??? They seek those positions of authority from which no democracy can dislodge them because they want to use people and live off the income and industry of others... IN this they are little different from the majority who seek office, but in their denieal of reason they deny their own fitness to govern...

If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence - George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention - and James Madison, who drafted the First Amendment - all declared that our nation was not founded on religion. The "founding fathers" well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom. Religious wars had been waged in Europe over its union; and, indeed, some of the first colonists, the Pilgrims, came to America to escape state-sponsored religious persecution. Our right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God. It is time that people of faith reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.

This is just one of the many reasons why I think just about every right that is given to people should be based strictly on their competence. I know many 10 year old children that are smarter and have more common sense and understanding than people well into their 20's and 30's...which is sad.

Spending bills originate in the House. You vote for your reps. That's the constitution. Very simple.

Rights are not given to us by government. They are given to us by our creator.

Real rights exist only by law. You will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you need to enforce them. God-given rights are only good in heaven; and you will have to wait a long time to take your claim of right to that high tribunal. In this world, one need have recourse to the law.

...rights 'are' given to us by the government. You may feel that the rights given by your creator supercede those of the government, but that doesn't mean that rights that you receive from government don't exist. I'll assume that since you brought this up, you live in America, that being the case, you are subject to those rights whether you agree with them or not.

Not according to our founding fathers.

Then you obviously disagree with our founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence.

Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution. He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.

Jefferson was schtupping one of his slave women, he didn't have time to write no damned constitution.

Seventy years ago, and maybe even thirty years ago, many communities were very homogeneous. Practically everyone came out of the same cookie cutter so to speak. However, with diversity waiting to move into these communities, we do have a separation of church and state. That means we do not have students from a secular education getting graduated with a big Christian cross at the entrace to the building. It is really simple. The whole country does not subscribe to the Christianity that the majority of this country identifies with. If the students had to graduate at a synagogue, I would think some parents would be annoyed to hear that their sons need to don a yarmulke (hat) upon entering the synagogue.

Do you really think all posters on this thread knows what "schtupping" (literally "stuffing," I believe) is a euphemism for?

No it's not, but in this case it cites a case that does, indeed, state that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the First-Amendment rights of citizens against the states.


Source: Library of Congress: The National Archives

And in Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court did decide that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment applicable to the states:

Source: Everson v. Board of Education

What creator---our parents? Evolution?

Literally, schtupping means 'poking', 'nudging', 'pushing'.

Limiting the numbers of representatives which the house did, they said, to make the house more manageble is something they did all on their own without asking permission from the people, and yes, the supreme court which is a little house of lords did pass on it, and say the house could set its own rules, but it is not what the original constitution gave us, which was an actual representative body given the limits of their day which were far less than our own... Why they should have had better representation while we have worse is a question no one can answer...The fact is that there are democratic districts with sizable republican minorities, and reupublican districts with sizable democratic minorities, and those minorities are year after year denied representation beccause the parties wanted a managed house... Where does it say in the preamble of the constitution that a managed house of representative is any goal of government??? How can say that better government resulted from the limits on the numbers of representatives??? Since everyone complains of bad government, East and West, North and South, left and right, and that one change is the most obvious, and clearly anti democratic, what else could be the cause??? We could have direct democracy, but the next best thing would be a representative government meant to grow with the people, which ours did for a time... It was the desire for personal power and money that caused the house to limit its numbers, and now they will not change their minds even as the country goes down the tubes... The government is incapable of meaningful reform...