Voting against the separation of church and state

[CShine]

I always find it refreshing when the Christian right renounces the U.S. Constitution. It makes me feel good about the future of this country that we've got government publicly declaring its distaste for the 1st Amendment. I look forward to having them intrude more into my personal life.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- The state House on Friday voted against affirming the separation of church and state in a resolution brought by a legislator who said he was fed up with a religious undertone at the Capitol.

The House voted 44-39 against the proposal. Only two Republicans voted for it, and one of them, Rep. Jim Medley, said he had intended to vote no but didn't get to his machine in time to change his vote.

Democratic Rep. Buddy Blair said he offered the measure because he was tired of conservative colleagues "making every issue into a religious issue."

"It's unbelievable to me. They have just voted against the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of the state of Arkansas," Blair said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines

[NCB]

Show me where in the Constitution that states a seperation of church and state. And oh, you do know what the term really means, right?

[djtestudo]

Glad to see the state legislature upholding the word of the Bill of Rights instead of what some two-bit legislator thinks it means.

[CShine]

Separation of church and state is in the 1st Amendment. It says we cannot make laws "respecting" an establishment of religion.

Webster's defintion of "respect"

To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. To avoid violation of or interference with. To relate or refer to; concern.

Even though the explicit wording of the Constitution says we can't make laws in any way relating to or concerning religion, some on the right prefer to just flatly ignore the direct wording of the Constitution and say it doesn't exist. The plain English meaning of the word says that in addition to showing favor, "respecting" also means relating to or concerning in any way. That's a complete separation of church and state. The resolution of the Arkansas legislature is an explicit denunciation of the 1st Amendment.

The religious right tries to tell you that the real world meaning of the word "respecting" somehow doesn't exist. As long as they can convince you that "respect" doesn't mean what it really means then they've succeeded in perpetuating the lie that there's no such thing as separation of church and state.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by NCB

Show me where in the Constitution that states a seperation of church and state. And oh, you do know what the term really means, right?

Ever heard of supreme court precedent? You know what that means, right?

[doubleaught]

Originally Posted by NCB

Show me where in the Constitution that states a seperation of church and state. And oh, you do know what the term really means, right?

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchst...s/a/phrase.htm

[flstf]

I do not wish to endorse any kind of religious preference but hasn't our country been infused with the concept of God from the very beginning? You know, things like "in God we trust" on our money and swearing oaths of office on the Holy Bible, etc...

There seems to be a disconnect as to what the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights really meant and how their words are interpreted today. Like a bunch of slave owners writing that all men are created equal.

[go-bots]

things like "in God we trust" on our money and swearing oaths of office on the Holy Bible, etc... I believe all that started in the 1950's.

[ObieX]

Probably for the same reason "under god" was put into the pledge of allegence. Gotta show the world that the communists are godless heathens that are evil. That the USSR is the evil empire of evil evilness that is evil.

When i went to grammar school i was always told that the "under god" part was optional when we said the pledge every single morning. (we werent told this every morning but actually pretty often) And this was a Catholic grammar school.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

The country was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty, as inherent gifts and rights of man, as they were bestowed in them by the Creator. Supreme Court precedent doesn't mean jack really, the court always goes back and fourth, I'd say in the case of "Seperation of Church and State" (especially in the more modern times) the court is often over stepping its boundaries and being activistic. This can be noted in the sense that the supreme court is dictating law, it isn't being legislated by voter appointed representatives, as was what the Framers intended.

[ShaniFaye]

On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The First Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs of religion within the sovereign states.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by doubleaught

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchst...s/a/phrase.htm

From this site"

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.

So did the Founders intend for schools to ban Christian values oreinted after school clubs and allow GLBT clubs?

[roachboy]

this original intent business is hilarious---that the 18th centruy, mostly deist "fathers" understood that some kind of religion was good for social control purposes--not rocket science.
that they then mapped this belief into elements of the structure they put into motion--obvious.
that they "intended" the legal system to adapt to changing times by refining the interpretation of law--also obvious.
then what possible objection can there be to the courts functioning as they were set out to do--by actively making interpretations of law, adjusting how the constitution is to be understood, etc.?
where does the idiot notion come from that speculations about the actual intent of 18th centuiry men--for the most part elaborated by far-right politicians of the 21st century--should shape how the process works?
you cant reconstruct intent.
you cant do it.
the whole doctrine, which mojo repeats above, is simply nonsense.

the idea that the republic was founded on relgious ideals means that you have to take seriously the fourth grade civics class line that everything about the states can be understood as emanating from the puritans, as if salem had somehow metastisized--a move that wipes out almost any contact with the actual history of the colonial period. it is empirically wrong, and ideologically just another hoary old conservative pipe dream.

as for arkansas...well, they gave the world a strong element of the fascist-style anglo-israelite version of christianity--you know the one--because the ways of god are not the ways of men, when the bible uses the word "jews" it really means aryans. the enormous concrete jesus outside of silver springs, i think, was built by the main guy behind this interpretation. so it appears that there is a tradition of this far to the right of the right christian lunacy there--sad to see that it has achieved a degree of respectability. and sad to see the story quoted above.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

The country was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty, as inherent gifts and rights of man, as they were bestowed in them by the Creator. Supreme Court precedent doesn't mean jack really, the court always goes back and fourth, I'd say in the case of "Seperation of Church and State" (especially in the more modern times) the court is often over stepping its boundaries and being activistic. This can be noted in the sense that the supreme court is dictating law, it isn't being legislated by voter appointed representatives, as was what the Framers intended.

I would say that supreme court precedent trumps the motivations you ascribe to the founding fathers any day of the week. Who are you to determine whether the court is being "activistic"? Judges are only activists when they're doing something you don't agree with.

This isn't directed solely at mojo...

It doesn't matter what the founding fathers wanted anymore, because, as some of you may know, they're all dead. Maybe i'm wrong, but if we have to look to people who died hundreds of years ago, who have no idea what a computer is, who have no idea what a car is, who have no idea what a political ad campaign is, who have no idea what etc., to determine our current course of action, we are indeed fucked. What does that say about our current state of leadership, or our current inability to think critically, when we can't even bother to come up with a compelling argument for something without having to take the absurd step of aligning our position with that of someone, long dead, whose allegiances-when placed in a contemporary context- we have no way of knowing?

None of you have any way of knowing what the founding fathers would've thought, and you're being foolish by pretending that an offhand quote, or a three page citation has any relevance to what any founding father might think about the way we're currently running america.

Does there exist a compelling argument for more religion in government that doesn't involve fallacious founding father endorsements?

[flstf]

Originally Posted by go-bots

things like "in God we trust" on our money and swearing oaths of office on the Holy Bible, etc... I believe all that started in the 1950's.

In God We Trust
From Treasury Department records it appears that the first suggestion that God be recognized on U.S. coinage can be traced to a letter addressed to the Secretary of Treasury from a minister in 1861. An Act of Congress, approved on April 11, 1864, authorized the coinage of two-cent coins upon which the motto first appeared.

Swear on the Bible
The Constitution does not require the new president to place his hand on a Bible while repeating the oath. The tradition has been kept since George Washington — with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt, who did not use a Bible when he took the oath after President William McKinley's 1901 assassination.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The First Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs of religion within the sovereign states.

I agree with the premise that "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." HOWEVER, it is my belief that in promoting religion we MUST promote all equally or none.

To have a nation that totally takes GOD out is in my opinion ignoring the masses who do believe. To promote 1 version of GOD and not another, again hurts the nation because we need to understand each other not prejudge and hate one another.

[martinguerre]

ugh...this stuff about the founders just seems so off topic to me. It's not about if they said the word God. Of course they did.

the issue is if this nation beleives in a secular compromise, where a certain amount of non-specific God language is used, but that the institutions of the nation are largly secular.

It's been called the deist minimum, a level of civil religion designed to be interfaith, surpassing denomination, and serving as a social signifier and legitimizing force for the civil order.

we had that...whatever the founders thought of it (and i think that's waht they intended fwiw...that's what we did. And it worked, more or less for a long time.

But in recent years, we have a very different kind of conversation. it's not about the "deist minimum" any more...we're moving to a point where majority rule may be the rule over certain areas of policy that were previously reserved for private belief. i think this nation is going to look very different if it continues this experiment.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by martinguerre

ugh...this stuff about the founders just seems so off topic to me. It's not about if they said the word God. Of course they did.

the issue is if this nation beleives in a secular compromise, where a certain amount of non-specific God language is used, but that the institutions of the nation are largly secular.

It's been called the deist minimum, a level of civil religion designed to be interfaith, surpassing denomination, and serving as a social signifier and legitimizing force for the civil order.

we had that...whatever the founders thought of it (and i think that's waht they intended fwiw...that's what we did. And it worked, more or less for a long time.

But in recent years, we have a very different kind of conversation. it's not about the "deist minimum" any more...we're moving to a point where majority rule may be the rule over certain areas of policy that were previously reserved for private belief. i think this nation is going to look very different if it continues this experiment.

As someone on the outside looking in, this is pretty much how I see things playing out as well.

A secular humanist approach to matters has always seemed the most fair and logical approach in a democratic system.

[martinguerre]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

A secular humanist approach to matters has always seemed the most fair and logical approach in a democratic system.

I must then, reccomend a charming volume on social theory. Talal Asad's "Formations of the Secular." It's not too bad, as social theory goes, for readability. And it shows some very interesting things about the way that secularism gets constructed, and why. You might enjoy...

[C4 Diesel]

I see an innate problem with where this may be coming from. The government is ascribed the duty of establishing a fair and ethical code of conduct. Who is to say what is moral and what isn't? The only constant in moral consitution is religion... aside from that it's all individual, as there is no general moral authority providing ethics for all of humanity. Do I believe this is proper? Not a chance, but I am also not surprised that it's happening. Eventually any legislation based on moral premises that are primarily drawn from religion (not that there's a lot now) will either slow down and revert through natural shifts of political power, or will continue until the nation reaches a level where people are clearly "oppressed" in manners unacceptable to the more general ideal of individual liberties (which again is subjective so the majority, and thus the legislature, would only care if they wanted to and it fit their beliefs).

[squirrelyburt]

The framers of the Constitution said nothing about separation of church and state, the intent was to not have a state sponsored religion, like the one they came to America to escape from. The first mention of the separation of church and state is from a thank you letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group regarding his election to office. This was introduced as ''gospel'' by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a former kkk leader, in 1947.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Ever heard of supreme court precedent? You know what that means, right?

History lesson:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

You're welcome

[Manx]

Originally Posted by NCB

History lesson:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

You're welcome

Only portions of that link are historically accurate - the vast majority of it is opinion, and in that, largely unsupported.

And then there is this:

The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible.

Where basic math is just false.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by NCB

History lesson:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

You're welcome

This article is billshit. In fact, if you look up "torcaso vs watkins" the case they cite near the end, you'll see that it's ruling actually upheld the seperation of church and state. That's what i mean by court precedent.

They attribute a steady increase in teen pregnancy to the lack of biblical influence in public schools. Unfortunately for you and them, teenage pregnancy has pretty much been falling since the fifties.

This is why i don't need other people telling me what the founding fathers did or did not think. Because other people can be self-serving liars.

You're welcome.

[zey420]

Just some food for thought...

Thomas Jefferson rewrote the gospels and left out all references to Jesus being the son of god and edited out most of the "miracles" (and I believe we would count him as a founding father.)

There are 3 day in the week that are named after Norse Gods.

It actually says in the Bible that you should NEVER swear on the bible or unto god.

[doubleaught]

Originally Posted by NCB

History lesson:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

You're welcome

You amuse me... Do you really think church and state should be one and the same?

If you have valid reasons for endorsing this, by all means enlighten us!

[Fourtyrulz]

Thomas Jefferson rewrote the gospels and left out all references to Jesus being the son of god and edited out most of the "miracles" (and I believe we would count him as a founding father.)

He didn't rewrite it just for shits-n-giggles. He wanted people to see what religion is truly about, without all the superstition and supernatual references. He basically took out everything that made it a Christian document: the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.

The whole business of original intent is pretty much bogus, unless you actually look at what they said about the separation of church and state and other things. They weren't shy about writing down most of their thoughts. The main problem with original intent is that we can't do anything about it. The Supreme Court does not and can not make their decisions based on original intent, so talking about it is pointless. Besides, the founding fathers didn't even have electricity or cars or telephones or polyester or plastic or interstates. They hadn't gone through WWI and II or the Great Depression or the 60's or had been able to travel through space. After looking at all that I'd say the founding fathers are pretty ignorant of our current situation and our current needs.

[joeshoe]

If you're so certain of "separation of church and state" in the first amendment, then why do you feel it's necessary to legislate a specific state law to verify it?

[nofnway]

or prohibit the FREE exercise thereof.....

Democratic Rep. Buddy Blair said he offered the measure because he was tired of conservative colleagues "making every issue into a religious issue."

So he's tired of colleagues freely exercising their beliefs.....who'd vote for that?

[shakran]

Originally Posted by nofnway

or prohibit the FREE exercise thereof.....

Democratic Rep. Buddy Blair said he offered the measure because he was tired of conservative colleagues "making every issue into a religious issue."

So he's tired of colleagues freely exercising their beliefs.....who'd vote for that?

If you want to start complaining that government workers aren't FREE to exercise religion, then I suggest you consider what would happen if a Satanist worked for the government. Would you like it if a congressional prayer to the Devil took place?


Once the government starts posting or verbalizing one religion's beliefs, they are endorsing a religion over all other religion.

The Supreme Court as you know is deciding whether or not to allow the ten commandments monuments to stay on courthouse grounds throughout the country. My station did a story on it, as I'm sure most stations in the country did. I was talking with the crew that did the story, and interestingly enough everyone they talked to that was in favor of the monuments staying because "it's freedom of speech" quickly changed their mind when asked if other religions such as satanic religions could post THEIR monuments in the same place.

What we have here is a critical mass of christians who have decided that freedom of religion means they should be free to push their religion whenever and whereever they want.

Frankly, they're being rather greedy. They can already do it in church, on TV, on the radio, in print, on the sidewalks, in people's homes, on bumper stickers, and in parks and universities. Why in hell do they feel the need to make sure the courts push their religion as well.


And to the people saying it's OK to post the ten commandments because all they do is tell people how to live, that's a pathetic argument that you're trying to influence the dumbest of the sheeple with. I don't need "Thou shalt not kill" to tell me not to murder. A sign saying "Murder is prohibited" will do the same thing for me, and it won't include phrases instructing me to honor only the one true god.



There is simply no good reason for government to be involved with religion at all, and plenty of good reasons for government to stay out of religion entirely.


The christians think it's great right now that the government is endorsing religion because it happens to be THEIR religion that the government is endorsing. If the government posted the 5 pilars of Islaam instead of the 10 commandments, most of them would be singing a very different tune.

[filtherton]

To add to what shakran said, though it certainly is sufficient on its own...

Christianity as it currently exists is actually a confederation of over 1500 different denominations. All of them are christian, and if you consider yourself christian, odds are the vast majority of them differ ideologically from you in some way that you would find significant and/or unnacceptable. It is only a matter of time before your personal christian belief system is offended by someone else's christian belief system.

If any you can't see how shortsighted it is to demand a christian presence in your government, then i was wondering if you'd be interested in holding onto a large sum of money for one of my nigerian associates until he has a chance to escape.