Question:
Has anyone thought of this dicotomy? As an individual, if I used my own money to send my children to a religious school, the separation of church and state issue would not come into play. On the other hand because some politicans a long time ago decided that they would take my money to fund public education, separation of church and state comes into play.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church > and state. The first Amendment reads: > >"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." > That’s it… essentially the government is forbidden to make any laws > either for or aginast establishing a religion or exercising your > religious beliefs. Nowhere does it say that religious leaders cannot > peaceably assemble and petition their government. Religious persons > have the same rights of access to our politicians as non-religious > persons. Too many people have read too much into the words of the 1st > Amendment and tried to twist it into something it doesn’t say. Just > read the Constitution… it isn’t all that long. > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html > It’s all there. > Ron Kelley >All except about two hundred years of supreme court decisions that make >it abundantly clear to every religious crank who ever tried to impose a >religion or harrass a religion that not one penny of federal funds and >not one hour of federal time shall go to any church or school or other >religious establishment, either in support or opposition.
The difference is… a Supreme Court decision can be reversed by another Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, can only be changed after a two thirds vote of the Senate and ratification by three fourths of the states. Supreme court decisions are only the current thinking of the current justices on what the Constitution means. Their decisions do not change the Constitution and can be overturned. I was not arguing for federal money to support churches. The original question was in reference to "separation of church and state". I pointed out that separation of church and state are not mentioned in the Constitution, only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Ron Kelley
Response:
>hurch. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart
Well said, and this from a Republican whose party has left its roots. My hope is that the Grand Old Party can return to its goal of better and less government. -Connie
Response:
Are you sure the American people haven’t grown to like socialism? If so, then there is not return. Only war. I wonder who will tell us, "tear that wall down." ??? Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->hurch. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart >Well said, and this from a Republican whose party has left its roots. My hope >is that the Grand Old Party can return to its goal of better and less >government. >-Connie
Response:
Too bad a zillion guys got tuition vouches under the G.I. Bill. Many of them went to Catholic colleges like Notre Dame, Fordham & Georgetown; also Brigham Young & SMU. all done courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Why don’t you write your congressman & complain Hatcher. Cajun
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant > >>when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it > >>applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was > >>to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to > >>me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here? > There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church > and state. The first Amendment reads: > >"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." > That’s it… essentially the government is forbidden to make any laws > either for or aginast establishing a religion or exercising your > religious beliefs. Nowhere does it say that religious leaders cannot > peaceably assemble and petition their government. Religious persons > have the same rights of access to our politicians as non-religious > persons. Too many people have read too much into the words of the 1st > Amendment and tried to twist it into something it doesn’t say. Just > read the Constitution… it isn’t all that long. > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html > It’s all there. > Ron Kelley > All except about two hundred years of supreme court decisions that make > it abundantly clear to every religious crank who ever tried to impose a > religion or harrass a religion that not one penny of federal funds and > not one hour of federal time shall go to any church or school or other > religious establishment, either in support or opposition. > This has allowed some terrible cranks to make a lot of mischief, but it > has kept far more cranks from making even worse mischief. > — > EAH > Otium cum dignitate
Response:
>>hurch. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart >Well said, and this from a Republican whose party has left its roots. My hope >is that the Grand Old Party can return to its goal of better and less >government.
Yes. The good old Republican party as we knew it circa the last half century minus the last few years. The more I read about this, the more it looks like what the people who wrote the constitution were really worried about keeping the church and state separate. Keeping religion as voluntary, rather than what happens when Religion gets the force of law. That opens up all kinds of situations where instead of voluntary participation, there can be mandatory requirements. And woe is it for heretics, atheists, pagans, etc. Inquisition it could become for them. Looks more and more like the founding people were more worried about the tyranny of religion (what some can become), rather than freedom of Religion. We seem to take the Freedom Of Religion part for granted and then have to struggle with the Freedom "From" Religion. concept. A few more indications of what was going on circa late 1700s. These writings plus much more come out of a Book called Spirit of America by William Bennett. Maybe someday I will buy more books about Federalist papers etc. We should be paying extra attention to James Madison.: He was the one who wrote the first amendment.t. So as we try to figure out what was meant beyond the obvious exact words, this should help in that interpretation. Looks to me that he was worried about both concepts freedom of religion and freedom from religion without actually saying so in those words. The following is a combination of Burkart, Bennett, Madison, Jefferson, B Rush and some of Burkart’s paraphrases etc. If anyone has trouble seeing who said what, let me know. James Madison to William Bradford Jr Jan 24 1774 Mentions how he was a member of the Episcopalian Church which was the established Religion of Virginia. Witnessed the persecution and imprisonment of a half dozen Baptist preachers. This was a letter expressing his outrage. Madison wrote the first amendment guaranteeing religious liberty to all Americans "—-not less than five or six well meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments? BB note: This is the part where it looked like freedom of Religion. All the rest of his writings which I have seen were more along the other lines. Freedom "from" religion In 1779 Jefferson proposed the bill for the Virginia Assembly which included excerpts I mentioned in this thread. About not wanting to be forced to give contributions to the church. The no man should be compelled to frequent or support religious worship etc. His bill was enacted in 1786 which I now see as a replacement for a bill which would have imposed a tax on everyone to support the church (Specifically Christian- all sects).. Madison was there with Jefferson in support of Jefferson. James Madison "A Memorial and Remonstrance" Oct 1985 Some of what Bennet indicated – paraphrase etc.: In 1784 Patrick Henry had introduced (into Virginia Legislature) a bill to support the teachers of the Christian religion of all sects. Bennet mentions that it most likely would have passed with support of Washington , Marshall, and Lee if it were not for Madison. He made a case for Jefferson’s bill mentioned above to prohibit forceful contributions or presence to the church etc. Madison said: " ‘ A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,’ and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law , will be a dangerous abuse of power, and bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, —-more words—-"to n and also: "Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence.." goes on to say.this is an unalienable right etc and cannot follow the dictate of others etc. and also It degrades the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to legislative authority. Distant as it may be in it’s present form from the Inquisition it differs only in degree." Another one of these: Benjamin Rush to John Adams 1811 "—some words– mot of the Founders agreed that religions faith cannot be directed by outward force. and "But could this right be realized if the state and the church were one, ads they then were in England and most of the World? The danger they foresaw was twofold: Just as men with political ambitions might make use of religion to usurp the rights of the people, so too men with religions ambitions might make use of government to extend their spiritual kingdoms. Thus the Founders separated church from state in order to protect the rights of each individual to worship freely, without fear of prosecution." Goes on to indicate that Madison said Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government. Note: BB has been saying this sort of thing for some time now.The implications of freedom "from religion". However I would add what should be obvious which is that it is not just to protect people to worship freely, but to protect people who do not worship at all. That is a big part of separation of church and state. Do not have a situation where the force of law, jail terms, burning at the stake etc can happen due to some kind of a heretic type of thing. Do not create a situation which in the long terms (many years), could lead to another Spanish Inquisition etc. B.Burkart
Response:
> Jim is a Communist of the Religous Left. > Jeff
I like to think in terms of Religious Right, and Godless left. When you think about it, there is no group more zealous then the fanatics of the ACLU & Godless left. They would rather gouge out their eyes then gaze upon a creche or a menorah on public property. The idea of a class of school children raising their hearts and minds to God in a moment of prayer is abhorrent to them. I am amazed that the American people can co-exist with such an intolerant, arrogant and rabid bunch. Cajun – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – your >>assumption is incorrect. >>> The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. >>> The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several >>> colonys DID restrict religious freedom. >>> The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, >>>as had been done in England. >>> There’s a big difference. >>If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this >>violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing >>a state religion"? >>>The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State >>>cannot permit an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. >>> Jim >>> Ga. >Jerry + others. >See my other article. I believe the item Jim mentioned is moe >explicit than most of the concepts. But there are a number of >other concepts such as a person’s right to freedom from >religion, and the commonly used phrase separation of church and >state. which are implicit from the Constitution ( including the >9th Amendment, the Declaration of Independence etc. >There was an article a violation of church and state relative to >a school voucher. Did not save the article (either SF Chronicle >or SJ Mercury News). Best I can recall the argument by the judges >was based on taxpayers paying for schools with religious >training. This particular case involved schools where religion >permeated almost everything that happened. >There was one or more papers on this very thing. Just located >one of these. . It was by Jefferson titled "A Bill for >Establishing Religious Freedom" In 1779 introduced to the >Virginia Legislature. Was enacted in 1786 > . >Yes this was Virginia not US. and it goes to place of worship etc >so it is not a perfect example. But it can shows what at least >one of the Founding Fathers was thinking back then. >It says in part: >"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the >propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is >sinful and tyrannical: that even the forcing him to support this >or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him >of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the >particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern ——- >etc " >And >"We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall >be compelled to frequent or support any religious place or >ministry whatsoever —– " >As far as I am concerned, it is not just school vouchers that are >not good. It is the entire array of religious items being pushed >into the secular area by people who are in a religious mode of >operation and interfering with the separation of church and state >which is a good thing. >I would hope that those (the religious takeover ones) , would be >kept doing that, (taking over the US). Vouchers is just one >little part of that. And the idea that some person might get >elected, then fix the Supreme court to take narrow Constitutional >decisions, is something that seems fearful at best. > Would hope that someday the Republican party can be a real >political party again like it was just a few years ago. This >prayer, voucher, abortion platform is not what one would expect >from a political party but rather from a church. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart
Response:
>left to their own devices, many regions of the country would be >willing to abandon education of the young as a goal.
In fact, it was a major felony to teach or provide schools for blacks in most Southern states before emancipation, an attitude which persists today. Jim Ga.
Response:
>I for one see no reason for the Federal government to even be involved in >education nor collecting or disbursing funds for it. This is one of the >powers >not specifically specified so is left to the individual states to decide.
I tend to agree with you, but probably for different reasons. I think parents should decide on the education for their children and pay for it. The reality is that children receive more education from TV and the Internet than from the classroom. One of the problems with our current education system is that we expect it to socialize our children rather than just educate them. I would like to see education reserved for academic topics only and remove all social acitivies such as sports, parties, counseling, babysitting, job training, drivers ed, drug ed, etc. By academics I mean reading, communicating, history, and a knowledge of the physical world around them. If parents aren’t capable of seeing to their children’s education, then there is a question as to whether they should be parents. This is unrealistic at the current time, so I would put money into teaching them parenting skills. I know of one preschool program that does this. If the children are in daycare, then the parents must attend parenting classes. This is money well spent. -Connie
Response:
: : >Too bad a zillion guys got tuition vouches under the G.I. Bill. Many of them : >went to Catholic colleges like Notre Dame, Fordham & Georgetown; also : >Brigham Young & SMU. all done courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Why don’t you : >write your congressman & complain Hatcher. : >Cajun : : The whole purpose of the seperation of Church and State was to prevent the : government from dictating religion as was done in England, Italy and Spain at : the time. : : I for one see no reason for the Federal government to even be involved in : education nor collecting or disbursing funds for it. This is one of the powers : not specifically specified so is left to the individual states to decide. : : : Bill Rollins in New Mexico : Secretary, NASCAR Bowling League : Delegate, Las Cruces Bowling Association : President, Las Cruces Youth Bowling Association : Y.A.B.A. Level II Certified Bowling Coach : : : Hi Good to see you again. Doris F. :
Response:
>I for one see no reason for the Federal government to even be involved in >education nor collecting or disbursing funds for it. This is one of the powers >not specifically specified so is left to the individual states to decide.
This approach has proven to be inadequate to provide a more equal educational opportunity to all students. It all started when school districts segregated their schools, and then underfunded schools in "undesirable" areas. the Federal involvement in local schools only came after the locals screwed it up. This still goes on today in many areas, not necessarily race-related. Jim Ga.
Response:
>Too bad a zillion guys got tuition vouches under the G.I. Bill. Many of them >went to Catholic colleges like Notre Dame, Fordham & Georgetown; also >Brigham Young & SMU. all done courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Why don’t you >write your congressman & complain Hatcher. >Cajun
The whole purpose of the seperation of Church and State was to prevent the government from dictating religion as was done in England, Italy and Spain at the time. I for one see no reason for the Federal government to even be involved in education nor collecting or disbursing funds for it. This is one of the powers not specifically specified so is left to the individual states to decide. Bill Rollins in New Mexico Secretary, NASCAR Bowling League Delegate, Las Cruces Bowling Association President, Las Cruces Youth Bowling Association Y.A.B.A. Level II Certified Bowling Coach
Response:
The Religous Left. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> James A. Chamblee wrote > > The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, > as had been done in England. > If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this > violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing > a state religion"? >You don’t suppose they could be lying, do you? Nah. No one lies anymore. >We’re all too adult to lie about things like that. And we’re all too >sophisticated to fall for such transparent BS. >—– >Murph >***** >"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." (Aldous Huxley)
Response:
Jim is a Communist of the Religous Left. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->assumption is incorrect. >> The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. >> The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several >> colonys DID restrict religious freedom. >> The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, >>as had been done in England. >> There’s a big difference. >If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this >violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing >a state religion"? >>The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State >>cannot permit an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. >> Jim >> Ga. >Jerry + others. >See my other article. I believe the item Jim mentioned is moe >explicit than most of the concepts. But there are a number of >other concepts such as a person’s right to freedom from >religion, and the commonly used phrase separation of church and >state. which are implicit from the Constitution ( including the >9th Amendment, the Declaration of Independence etc. >There was an article a violation of church and state relative to >a school voucher. Did not save the article (either SF Chronicle >or SJ Mercury News). Best I can recall the argument by the judges >was based on taxpayers paying for schools with religious >training. This particular case involved schools where religion >permeated almost everything that happened. >There was one or more papers on this very thing. Just located >one of these. . It was by Jefferson titled "A Bill for >Establishing Religious Freedom" In 1779 introduced to the >Virginia Legislature. Was enacted in 1786 > . >Yes this was Virginia not US. and it goes to place of worship etc >so it is not a perfect example. But it can shows what at least >one of the Founding Fathers was thinking back then. >It says in part: >"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the >propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is >sinful and tyrannical: that even the forcing him to support this >or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him >of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the >particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern ——- >etc " >And >"We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall >be compelled to frequent or support any religious place or >ministry whatsoever —– " >As far as I am concerned, it is not just school vouchers that are >not good. It is the entire array of religious items being pushed >into the secular area by people who are in a religious mode of >operation and interfering with the separation of church and state >which is a good thing. >I would hope that those (the religious takeover ones) , would be >kept doing that, (taking over the US). Vouchers is just one >little part of that. And the idea that some person might get >elected, then fix the Supreme court to take narrow Constitutional >decisions, is something that seems fearful at best. > Would hope that someday the Republican party can be a real >political party again like it was just a few years ago. This >prayer, voucher, abortion platform is not what one would expect >from a political party but rather from a church. Maybe the >Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it >were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it >wants to be part of the state.. >B.Burkart
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant >>when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it >>applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was >>to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >>me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here? > There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church > and state. The first Amendment reads: >"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." > That’s it… essentially the government is forbidden to make any laws > either for or aginast establishing a religion or exercising your > religious beliefs. Nowhere does it say that religious leaders cannot > peaceably assemble and petition their government. Religious persons > have the same rights of access to our politicians as non-religious > persons. Too many people have read too much into the words of the 1st > Amendment and tried to twist it into something it doesn’t say. Just > read the Constitution… it isn’t all that long. > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html > http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html > It’s all there. > Ron Kelley
All except about two hundred years of supreme court decisions that make it abundantly clear to every religious crank who ever tried to impose a religion or harrass a religion that not one penny of federal funds and not one hour of federal time shall go to any church or school or other religious establishment, either in support or opposition. This has allowed some terrible cranks to make a lot of mischief, but it has kept far more cranks from making even worse mischief. — EAH Otium cum dignitate
Response:
The true and hidden purpose of separation of church and state set up by are fore fathers ? easy question. If this country was to ever completely go bank rump the government could move in and take the assist away from the churches to pay off the country deaths and still have money left over,set up as a fail safe. #2 Give people the right to their own religion / belief. Most of us think thats why, Iam sure there where many other reasons The #1 reason is for this country to stay alive, and thats something we all should be thankful for. most of the time, don’t be fooled be cautious.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >assumption is incorrect. > The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. > The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several > colonys DID restrict religious freedom. > The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, >as had been done in England. > There’s a big difference. >If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this >violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing >a state religion"? >The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State >cannot permit an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. > Jim > Ga.
Jerry + others. See my other article. I believe the item Jim mentioned is moe explicit than most of the concepts. But there are a number of other concepts such as a person’s right to freedom from religion, and the commonly used phrase separation of church and state. which are implicit from the Constitution ( including the 9th Amendment, the Declaration of Independence etc. There was an article a violation of church and state relative to a school voucher. Did not save the article (either SF Chronicle or SJ Mercury News). Best I can recall the argument by the judges was based on taxpayers paying for schools with religious training. This particular case involved schools where religion permeated almost everything that happened. There was one or more papers on this very thing. Just located one of these. . It was by Jefferson titled "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" In 1779 introduced to the Virginia Legislature. Was enacted in 1786 . Yes this was Virginia not US. and it goes to place of worship etc so it is not a perfect example. But it can shows what at least one of the Founding Fathers was thinking back then. It says in part: "That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical: that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern ——- etc " And "We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious place or ministry whatsoever —– " As far as I am concerned, it is not just school vouchers that are not good. It is the entire array of religious items being pushed into the secular area by people who are in a religious mode of operation and interfering with the separation of church and state which is a good thing. I would hope that those (the religious takeover ones) , would be kept doing that, (taking over the US). Vouchers is just one little part of that. And the idea that some person might get elected, then fix the Supreme court to take narrow Constitutional decisions, is something that seems fearful at best. Would hope that someday the Republican party can be a real political party again like it was just a few years ago. This prayer, voucher, abortion platform is not what one would expect from a political party but rather from a church. Maybe the Republican party could be declared unconstitutional unless it were to mend it’s ways and separate itself from the church if it wants to be part of the state.. B.Burkart
Response:
assumption is incorrect. > The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. > The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several > colonys DID restrict religious freedom. > The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, as > had been done in England. > There’s a big difference.
If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing a state religion"? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State cannot permit > an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. > Jim > Ga.
Response:
>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant >when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it >applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was >to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?
It is a good thing if the purpose is to prevent the religious people from making the state do what it wants them to do. That is because in today’s America, Religious freedom flourishes. No discernable problems. But today’s regular people are in danger of being ruled in a way similar to a theocracy. And that is not what the US is supposed to be. I think the answer to what you might or might not be missing is not in what the constitution might "explicitly" say. But what is "implicit". And of common sense if we are to think of the US as a place that is supposed to be free from gov oppression etc. The freedom "of" religion seems to be well understood by all. But the need for a freedom "from" religion does not seem to be as easily understood. There was a long thread circa a yr or two ago which I started. As best as I can recall, most in the usenet gp thought there is by the constitution or at least should be freedom "from" religion. Even the most conservative of the conservatives here at that time believed in what is commonly called separation of church and state. Though they might have not considered some of the most common issues to be a part of that. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among those are Life , Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The constitution says in part: The preamble in part: "—–and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity —–" Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press —–" Amendment 9 "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." There are also some Federalist papers etc, some of which I have read, most of which I have not read. Some in particular express a fear of having to be part of Religion if do not want to. Such as paying for religious training etc (more or less the school voucher thing).. (Could most likely find that one if needed — in one of my books). My take on all of this is that it is very important that in addition to freedom of religion, it is important that people who are to be free, and in the pursuit of happiness etc, need to be free from religion. That leads to the concept of separation of church and state even though those words are not mentioned in the constitution. If the state were to take over religion, that would be interference from freedom of religion. Each person to do his religion as he/she desires. But if religion were to take over the state, the opposite could occur. The secular government, when run by religion, or a lot of people of the same religion could easily pass laws etc which would interfere with the rights of people to not have to be subject to the religions. Or just people of many different Religions who are dependent on the Church Bosses to get elected and need to do their bidding. Not the people’s bidding. I can come up with many examples of this. Did a few years ago, just recently in another political use net gp, and from just simple experience. The school prayer thing. People can organize and pray all they want in schools. Prayer in schools is a fact. The problem with the Republican push for prayer in schools is that it goes beyond that. And can interfere with people;s rights to not have it. Such as in the Jewish kid’s situation in the Southern Religious atmosphere. The UN thing. Foreign policy not as a normal secular policy but as the result of a Religious policy. The pledge of allegiance under God etc. The last time this came up if I can recall everyone was saying well it is OK because it can be one nation under their own God. But then one or more people who were atheists (and war veterans too) spoke up and indicted that they did not want to do that. The potential of laws like a town that wanted to make the 10 commandments its law and the Bilble it’s constitution. Or where one of the Religious school’s policy, is that the constitution is not the only constitution, but it is the constitution and the Religious items etc. So is it to jail if you do not do the worship of the God? Or the abortion issue. Not just the issue of good vs bad. But the issue of the woman’s life vs the babies. The recent case in Louisiana where the wife had to have a 50 % chanced of death to get an abortion . Even with Roe v Wade, no doctor in the entire state would do an abortion for her even if the money was collected by charity for her. A secular state has a smaller chance of that kind of madness than a religious state. Or the examples of the theocracies. Where women are supposed to be killed by relatives if there is something that even looks like flirtation. Or the veils. Or the submits. Etc. Or maybe no movies, no dancing, no nothing unless the elder says so. Or the libraries, schools etc. No Darwin. No Huckleberry Finn, no anything. Or maybe holy wars. Wars against Catholics, Jewish States, Muslim, regular Protestant etc Every one other than whatever sect happen to have the most elected officials and therefor able to run the state like a church. The help the Serbs massacre the ethnic Albanians in part because maybe they are Christians?. Or fix the supreme court. So that they will not take the interpretation relative freedom of people from repression by the religious. But rather an interpretation that since church and state is not implicit, it is supposedly somehow OK for the church to take over the United States. One of the current candidates indicated that he would arrange the supreme court if elected via appointment of certain types of judges etc.. That is scary. Or in the extreme case, we could eventually go full loop back to the witch burning and the burning of the people who stand up for the witches. Or the Spanish Inquisition. Or where one of two major party’s platform is all about religion and not about government. Prayer, vouchers, abortion, Not about taxes, fiscal policy , foreign policy etc. It seems like the current Republican party is a church that is trying to run the state. That is the equivalent of no, or little separation of church and state. And I carefully look to see if I am voting for a churchman or a real politician when deciding whether to vote. Used to be just pull one lever for Republicans and then go ahead and do something else. The list could go on and on and on. So it is the desire / need to be "free from Religion" and or the possibility of religion run amok in the name of the state. Just go back and think of yourself on the fire, or in the torture chambers. And then see if you too might want a little bit of "freedom from Religion". So some people are worried about the Religious takeover which has already happened to quite an extent. If this does not help you "get it" or see what you might be "missing", it is possible that nothing will. On the other hand, maybe some might think all this is not too good. And maybe want to go back to pre 1992 where more Republicans could vote for Republicans once again. B.Burkart
Response:
>>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant >when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it >applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was >to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?
There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state. The first Amendment reads: >"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."
That’s it… essentially the government is forbidden to make any laws either for or aginast establishing a religion or exercising your religious beliefs. Nowhere does it say that religious leaders cannot peaceably assemble and petition their government. Religious persons have the same rights of access to our politicians as non-religious persons. Too many people have read too much into the words of the 1st Amendment and tried to twist it into something it doesn’t say. Just read the Constitution… it isn’t all that long. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html It’s all there. Ron Kelley
Response:
> James A. Chamblee wrote > The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, > as had been done in England. > If you are correct, then why do the opponents of school vouchers say this > violates the separation of church and state? How can this be "establishing > a state religion"?
You don’t suppose they could be lying, do you? Nah. No one lies anymore. We’re all too adult to lie about things like that. And we’re all too sophisticated to fall for such transparent BS. —– Murph ***** "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." (Aldous Huxley)
Response:
>I thought I understood that the purpose was >to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?
Despite what Jerry J. has to say, your assumption is incorrect. The purpose was NOT to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. The Constitution doesn’t address that issue, and at the time, several colonys DID restrict religious freedom. The purpose was to prevent the State from establishing a state religion, as had been done in England. There’s a big difference. The Supreme Court has interpretted that to mean that the State cannot permit an establishment of religion in any State activities, such as schools. Jim Ga.
Response:
Nope. You’ve got it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant > when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it > applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was > to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to > me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?
Response:
>I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant >when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it >applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was >to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to >me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?
What do you mean? Do you mean that religion is limiting the state? If so, in what way? I admit that I think both left and right are trying to legislate their morals. The Religious Right is trying to legislate bedroom issues such as who can have sexual intercourse with whom. The left is trying to do things such as conduct war for "humanitarian" reasons. -Connie
Response:
I occurs to me that I really do not understand what the Constitution meant when they said we should separate the church from the state. Anyway, as it applies to what we say today. I thought I understood that the purpose was to prevent the state from limiting religious freedom. But it just seems to me that today, the roles are reversed. Have I missed something here?
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.