Busting the Myth of Separation of Church and State

I think what your trying to say is that neither side should interfere with the other and that is what Jefferson was referring to when he made is remark of separation. The USSC did not rule separation on what the First Amendment said, as they should have. They made it on Jefferson's remark.

 

Incorrect, the bill of rights places specific restrictions on the government which is why half of the founders did not want them included. They felt only those limitations listed would apply and anything not listed would not.

 

Pastors can be as political as they want, they just can't remain tax exempt if they go too far. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

 

of course it is............

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Marbury simply affirmed it.
of course it is

 

One judge knocked them down, how is that representing the majority? And yes, our entire system is set up to represent the will of the majority. Parliamentary systems are not and we do not have that, we have a winner take all system.

 

Jesus is not mentioned in either. But I don't think you will find me saying anything about Jesus. Never said anything about a Christian nation, although most of the signers of the Constitution were Christian. I have said the First Amendment does not say one word about separation and doesn't mean it. They took Jefferson's use of the word to rule that way but he meant no interference between the two like it was in England. The whole crux of it is NO INTERFERENCE, not separation.

 

You are confusing governing with elections. We have a win or take all election system, but our constitution was written to protect the minority when legislating, as well as making sure our nation is governed from a non religious, secular standpoint. The only way to get freedom OF religion, is to keep government and politics free FROM religion.

 

Neither is "God"...nor "Creator"...or "Divine Providence".

Declaration of Independence...sure. BUT NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND...the U.S. Constitution.


So clearly the Founders didn't want religion incorporated into governance. Because they had seen what happened in Europe when the Church and the State were one and acted in concert.

And "interference"...runs BOTH ways. Government can't interfere with religion...religion can't interfere with government.

 

The only point of the constitution is to give the federal government more power. We did not need a constitution to give us what we already had. In fact, the founders were only sent to Philadelphia to amend the AOC, not to throw out our way of governing and create a whole new system.

 

I think you would receive an F in any High School civics class The point of the constitution was to delegate different powers to 3 branches of government.

 

I would go so far as to say that interference is unconstitutional under the establishment clause. How do you interfere with a religion if you have not established something as religious?

 

Just about anyone who isn't a religio/political fanatic understands that the phrase you mentioned means that the government should neither support or attack any religion. (make no law respecting...).

But more importantly...any religious organization that wants to make political statements and campaign for a candidate ort issue should immediately lose their tax exempt status.

 

It's a good idea wherever it came from. If I had a dollar for every time I read a letter to the editor in our online newspapers in Australia that stated that our Constitution separates church and state I'd probably have enough for a big Friday night out. I'm amazed the ignorance of my fellow citizens who think that the dictum of separation of church and state in the US applies in Australia. It doesn't. But it's a good idea.

By the way "Commonwealth" here means the federation, not a particular State such as in Mass.

The Founding Fathers (yours) recognised the power of religion over ordinary people and how it was used by kings and other despots in Britain to keep power. It was very wise of them to sow the seeds that allowed a grown-up nation to keep the pulpit out of politics.

 

This is a very common misconception. Government has NO rights, it only has powers and privileges granted to it by the framers as described in the Constitution. Government servants have no rights within their role as state actors. And despite that the corrupt Supreme Court decided corporations (a paper created fiction) have rights protected by the Constitution as if they were living beings, only human beings have inherent, unalienable rights. A more ancient corrupt Supreme Court unconstitutionally granted government servants absolute and qualified immunity. The Bill of Rights does not spell out rights or grant them. Additionally, it does not mention anything about Americans or citizens. No one and no piece of paper can grant rights. The first 8 Amendments describes specific rights that must be protected as a mandated duty of the federal government. The 9th Amendment protects all rights not mentioned (i.e. unenumerated) within the Constitution and the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from attaining/seizing powers not specifically granted to it by the federal Constitution. In reality, the only Amendments required within the Bill of Rights are the 9th and 10th but I guess the framers wanted something more specific.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

 

The law is what congress and SCOTUS agree on the constitution be damned.

How about those at state institutions? Why should getting tax exemptions mean you have no voice in politics? Almost everyone gets tax exemptions. Its not like the poor who take government money. Should those on the dole be allowed to vote to take the earnings of those who are better off?

 

Where does the constitution say you lose your right to free speech if you are tax exempt ? I expect Catholic Priests to preach to vote against pro choice candidates.

 

No it was to limit and define its powers. You would get the F

 

Where does the Constitution say you have any right to be tax exempt? If you choose to give up a right for tax exemption, that's your choice. Nobody took anything away from you.

 

Should Unions loose theirs? How about PP ?

 

Actually it was the States that requested the bill of rights and the purpose of the 1st amendment was so that they could keep their state religions without interference from the federal government. Thats why it only limits congress in this matter.

 

It has always been the intent of the left to separate religion from government, but not government from religion. But fortunately for us, the First Amendment was designed to tilt it the other way; to separate government from religion, but not religion from government.

 

I see separation when I see tax exempt status for the Church. I see it in our government as we are not led by theocrats, we are not a theocracy, SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and not the Bible. I see separation when same sex marriage became legal. I see the separation when Christians have the right to live by Biblical standards but lack the authority to make me do the same. I could go on and on.

Indeed the words "separation of Church and State" are not in our founding documents, but a moot point as there is a very real separation between the Church and our secular government.

As for frightened pastors, if they have the backing of God then what is there to fear? Anti-religious organizations have the right to try to scare the Church, but they have no authority to make the Church do their biding.

 

I totally agree. It's no interference they wanted, not separation.
.

 

And in a free/ish country pastors are allowed to be involved with politics.

 

Everyone listens to fairy tales, Republicans tell fairy tails, Democrats tell fairy tales, and the biased masses buy them hook line and sinker. Hillery dodged sniper fire and Trump respects women are great fairy tales, yet both candidates have a lot of influence over their supporters and tell them how to vote.