Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 222

Thread: Dag nabbit, does seperation of church and state mean anything anymore?

  1. #1
    emoreno2292 Guest

    Dag nabbit, does seperation of church and state mean anything anymore?

    Has anyone noticed nowadays how powerful Christian coalitions have become? Not only have they forced intelligent design to be taught in science classes, but now they impose their christian morality upon us all? What are your opinions on this?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7,012
    Quote Originally Posted by emoreno2292
    Has anyone noticed nowadays how powerful Christian coalitions have become? Not only have they forced intelligent design to be taught in science classes, but now they impose their christian morality upon us all? What are your opinions on this?
    Mental inbreeding is always a numerically powerful political tool with limited intellectual requirements.
    These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,353
    Quote Originally Posted by emoreno2292
    Has anyone noticed nowadays how powerful Christian coalitions have become? Not only have they forced intelligent design to be taught in science classes, but now they impose their christian morality upon us all? What are your opinions on this?
    It was worse in the 17th century. Cheer up.
    "They asked if I had found Jesus and I didn't even know He was missing."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by sinjin
    It was worse in the 17th century. Cheer up.
    Yeah, but it was better 20 years ago. If we put some effort into it now we can insure that the cycle only takes a couple of decades to swing back, and not a couple of centuries.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    northern Ky.
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by emoreno2292
    Has anyone noticed nowadays how powerful Christian coalitions have become? Not only have they forced intelligent design to be taught in science classes, but now they impose their christian morality upon us all? What are your opinions on this?
    It's merely a reaction to today's unprecidented anti-Christian movements.

    Separation of church & state never did mean much, since it's not in the Constitution.
    Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

  6. #6
    emoreno2292 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by sinjin
    It was worse in the 17th century. Cheer up.
    Well, you've got a point there...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000
    It's merely a reaction to today's unprecidented anti-Christian movements.

    Separation of church & state never did mean much, since it's not in the Constitution.

    What are these groups? Why is the christians religious freedom more important then those who wish to be left alone and not wish to particpate in christian activities?


    Do you mean the people who want to be free of having their children forced to stand and patipate in christian prayers?


    It seems to me that christians want the freedom to practice their religion any where any time, in any ones face, have the government sponsor christian activities, and make laws to enforce their brand of morality. Then when someone complains that they don't want to have to watch, participate, or have the government, which they pay taxes to support, force them to live by a christian set of morals and sue. The christians feel that their religion is under attack when it wouldn't be if they kept their religion in their churches and homes and out of peoples faces in the first place.
    Last edited by Matthew S; 08-09-2005 at 08:38 AM.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000
    It's merely a reaction to today's unprecidented anti-Christian movements.

    Separation of church & state never did mean much, since it's not in the Constitution.
    There is no anti-Christian movement; that's a myth generated by the religious right to justify their efforts to force their beliefs on others. If you disagree, if you really think there is such a movement, then please show me any evidence you have that it's real, I'd love to see it. And please note that scattered incidents don't qualify as a movement. Please show evidence of a co-ordinated effort, and if you can spell out exactly what this movements goals precisely are.

    As for seperation of church and state not being in the Consititution, of course it is, as I'm sure you well know. Not using those exact words of course, but that's what's guaranteed in the first amendment.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronus
    As for seperation of church and state not being in the Consititution, of course it is, as I'm sure you well know. Not using those exact words of course, but that's what's guaranteed in the first amendment.
    Actually the first amendment has two parts regarding religion:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    Pretty clear that there's no guarantee of seperation between the two.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7,012
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat
    Actually the first amendment has two parts regarding religion:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    Pretty clear that there's no guarantee of seperation between the two.
    I'm not a member of any bar but in contract law congress being restrained from legislation of religious establishment (to condone) and prohibition of religious exercise is very effective separation between religion and state. As most of the founding fathers were dietists with a few agnostics, I can't even imagine agreement among them to combine government with mythical belief systems.
    These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by emoreno2292
    Not only have they forced intelligent design to be taught in science classes, but now they impose their christian morality upon us all? What are your opinions on this?
    Where has ID ever been introduced in a classroom?
    Or more realistically, which school district has ID as part of its cirriculum?
    I've never heard of one.

    Maybe this cartoon will explain things:

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat
    Actually the first amendment has two parts regarding religion:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    Pretty clear that there's no guarantee of seperation between the two.
    If Congress can't prohibit the exercise of religion, that means they can't muck with religion. If Congress can't respect an establishment of religion, that means that a religion can't muck with the government. If two things can't muck with each other, then they're seperate. I'd have to say that it's utterly clear that there is a guarantee, so would you mind expanding on how there isn't one? I trully don't see how you started with your opening sentence and reached your conclusion.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by georged
    I'm not a member of any bar but in contract law congress being restrained from legislation of religious establishment (to condone) and prohibition of religious exercise is very effective separation between religion and state. As most of the founding fathers were dietists with a few agnostics, I can't even imagine agreement among them to combine government with mythical belief systems.
    Yes, but I think that the specific wording of the establishment clause leaves some room for interpretation, and under the pre-civil war (pre 14th ammendment) constitution there was some room for states to "establish" or "regulate" religion since Congress would not be involved. But the way it's interpreted now, the 14th ammendment means, in effect, that the states also cannot establish religion.

    If there was originally meant to be a true seperation of church and state, then the establishment clause would have read more like the other ammendments in the bill of rights. For instance, the 4th ammendment: "The right of the people... shall not be violated..."

    If there was originally intended to be a solid seperation of church and state then the establishment clause would have read something more like:
    "The right to free exercise of religion shall not be abrigded..."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by gnojek
    If there was originally meant to be a true seperation of church and state, then the establishment clause would have read more like the other ammendments in the bill of rights. For instance, the 4th ammendment: "The right of the people... shall not be violated..."

    If there was originally intended to be a solid seperation of church and state then the establishment clause would have read something more like:
    "The right to free exercise of religion shall not be abrigded..."
    By that reasoning freedom of speech and the press would also not be solid rights, since they use exactly the same wording, and in fact are part of the same sentence, as the establishment clause. All of the amendments in the Bill of Rights use slightly different turns of phrase; I really don't think the intention there was to say that they really really meant it with some of the amendments, and only sort of meant it on others, based soley on subtelties of wording.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronus
    If Congress can't prohibit the exercise of religion, that means they can't muck with religion. If Congress can't respect an establishment of religion, that means that a religion can't muck with the government. If two things can't muck with each other, then they're seperate. I'd have to say that it's utterly clear that there is a guarantee, so would you mind expanding on how there isn't one? I trully don't see how you started with your opening sentence and reached your conclusion.
    Free exercise clause:
    - The government cannot pass laws, for example, prohibiting people from wearing symbols of their religious beliefs, such as a cross, burqa, or pentagram.

    Establishment clause:
    - The government cannot require you to join a particular religion, nor can they adopt a state religion.

    Both clauses are a restriction on the activities of the government. The Constitution's purpose is to limit government's ability. It has no effect on entities outside of the government.

    The Constution very well could have stated that the church and government could, in no way, interfere with eachother. However, this would have resulted in some fairly absurd results, and religions would have nearly complete freedom to do whatever they want without fear of government intervention.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •