Busting the Myth of Separation of Church and State

The following are Tax exempt according to the IRS Code: 501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations

The whole thing about tax exemption is explained @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization

This has been a long-term attempt by atheists and leftists to mute churches and other religious organizations from voicing their opinions.

Just curious. Has anyone found a single instance where a Muslim mosque has been denied tax exemption for preaching Sharia over US or state laws? One single instance?

 

The purpose of the United States Constitution is to protect the rights of THE PEOPLE and the INDIVIDUAL STATES.

 

People didn't need those protections before the constitution was ratified, they already had them. It's like fencing in an elephant herd and allowing them to wander within the fence and saying they are free but in actuality they were free before you fenced them in.

 

The state of Virginia was free to do whatever they wanted before the constitution. Did you know they were negotiating foreign policy with France, setting their own time zone, creating their own currency, instituting tariffs on trade? The constitution stripped them of all that but kicked down some minor protections instead.

 

Was it wrong for MLK to advance civil rights? Of course they can . Besides that many of the founders were pastors.

 

Another instance where they got it wrong. The BoR was requested by the states to protect them from the Feds. Now SCOTUS has turned it upon the states.

The idea of separation of church and state we have today was started by a Supreme court justice who was a KKK member and hated Catholics using public school buses.

 

Jefferson and Lincoln disagree

They were right

 

You do realize that back in the old days churches were where most towns held their meetings. It was not like to day with churches of every denomination available most towns had 1 church that everyone attended. Many states had official religions. Again its everyones job. Why should the church be picked on when others who not only are tax exempt but actually receive money from the government are not so limited?

- - - Updated - - -

Im sure you are much smarter than he

 

The 14th is the most abused amendment ever and has cause so much damage.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure they are and have been for years.

 

the constitution promises freedom from religion.

 

Because their states had constitutions protecting them.

 

What many do not understand that before the articles of confederation and constitution the states were nation states not states like we have today. They were sovereign nations able to do all the things sovereign nations are entitled to.

 

No thats were you guys went wrong it guarantees freedom of religion. The founders wanted a religious peoples not a bunch of atheists. Religious people tend to take less governing .

 

Exactly my point. The constitution did not give anyone rights, it only limited which ones the federal government could take away.

 

Quote Originally Posted by TCassa89 View Post

Well first of all, when referring to the bill of rights we're already not referring to all amendments, but rather the first 10 of the US constitution. It is accurate to say that the due process clause does not apply all of the bill of right to the states (I believe the 7th amendment still doesn't apply to the states), but it still covers most of the government limitations within the bill of rights

It is important to note that before the 14th amendment the bill of rights did not apply to the states, period.. it was the 14th amendment that extended the bill of rights to apply to the states as well as the federal government. Even in the McDonald v City of Chicago case that you have referred to, the ruling was that the 2nd amendment applies to the states through the due process clause in the 14th Amendment. The purpose of the 14th amendment was always to constitutionally limit the states' power, just as the federal government's power is limited by law.

The 14th Amendment rules that the states cannot deny a person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" as well as the “equal protection of the laws”

The supreme court has interpreted this protection of the laws to mean that the states are subject to the majority of the listed limitations of government power within the bill of rights


That shouldn't come as a surprise. The states make up our nation and the people in it. The Bill of Rights cover all Americans of every state just as our Constitution does. It spells out the rights of the people, not the rights of the government, be Federal or state. What good is the Bill of Rights if individual states can make their own laws restricting those rights?

 

but isn't religion evil? religionists have often killed people if they don't convert, as with the catholic crusades or muslim suicide bombers.

 

So Freedom of Speech is limited dependent on taxes?

 

Sorry we are not a Democracy did you mot learn that in third grade history??? We are a Constitutional Republic If the will of the people is your argument against Gay marriage then you have no argument. No religion should strip anyone of their rights period. That is what the founding fathers wanted and intended. If you and your fellow Christians want religious bigotry by all means please create your own country isn't that pretty simple.

 

Incorrect. The complete passage says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

But otherwise you are essentially correct...Congress is prohibited from passing laws based on religious criteria, but there is nothing barring the government from displaying or celebrating religious thingies...or members of government from exercising their religious preferences. I might agree that it can be inferred that government regulations must also be treated like laws passed by Congress...but one could probably argue against it just as easily.

Pastors won't speak up because they are dependent upon their tax-exempt status, proving once again that the most powerful religion is money.

 

Some religions can be evil. I think Islam is as it has nothing in it to bring the religion up to date. Christianity is not evil, but people have not followed it as it is written. Going back to the Old Testament which in a large part, we don't follow anymore. We have come a long way from the Crusades.

 

Nothing in this post contradicts anything I've said You are posting unsubstantiated nonsense. The idea that atheists have some kind of political power over the religious majority would be funny if there weren't so many fools who actually believe such stupidity.

 

Well stated. I often wonder if the idiocrat class even know the difference between a Republic, where the individual is sovereign, and a Democracy where the group is sovereign. It seems these days that the idiocrats prefer mob rule...it's easier to understand and doesn't require a lot of thought.

 

That would be one helluva neat trick, considering he seems to have made no contributions to that collection - never mind that the lot of them were written after the final draft of the original Constitution had already gone to the printer anyway.

And how did he do that, exactly?

Then surely it is passing strange that the ruling had no effect on any action that had been taken (or not taken) by the Jefferson administration.

It is hardly surprising that someone of your caliber would think so.

I'm perfectly aware of that, thanks anyway.

No, they are composed of beings with unalienable rights.

I won't speak for others, but I know it because I know what corporations are and do, wherefore I know that no "paper fiction" can be what a corporation is or do what a corporation does.

Not legally they weren't, because the Articles of Confederation also restricted the power of the states.

Like Hell it does.

 

i generally interpret the ancient forms of the world religions to be more violent, less charitable. and perhaps the modern forms of the world religions to be more charitable, less violent.

in this context, i interpret religion to be a phenomenon of human evolution. religion is only as good or bad as the evolution of an individual, society or the human species.

 

i don't believe in hell. you're forcing your religion on me.