Busting the Myth of Separation of Church and State

The anti federalist papers refer to all the writings by all of them during that period. Missed that day of class huh?

 

Post deleted - redoing.

 

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.




Establishment Clause | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ...

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

Legal Information Institute






This is what I have been saying for years. It's not separation of church and state. What the government is doing now is restricting the free exercise of religion.

 

That is debatable. Establishment is different then modifying laws for current religions.

 

Well how do you define it? Don't forget the part about Congress shall not

 

How does giving religious organizations a special tax exemption restrict the free exercise of religion? You're talking nonsense.

 

Thank you for making it so "simple"
Religious leaders having a responsibility to their congregations to look out for their welfare is a load of crap. What makes that premise even more laughable is that people that believe that are more than likely the same people that will rail against "big government" controlling their lives yet they will "follow" these "shepherds".
Yes, the Constitution give the right of free speech to all (don't know where I said otherwise) but ironically the religious institutions they represent do not have to pay taxes. THEY have to pay taxes so maybe they should speak their political minds outside of church.

 

I said about an hour ago I think they should be taxed as the First Amendment doesn't mean separation of church and state. That was a misinterpretation of a Liberal USS Court in ruling it does mean separation.

 

Taking things out of context is your posting style is it?

No they're not. They are nothing but a piece of paper (er, bits and bytes nowadays) controlled and operated by human beings. They're not composed of anything else. They're just like governments, in this case a true paper creation/invention/fiction. Humans and corporations are two completely different entities, the former is a sentient biological being, the latter is still a fiction.

What those who control and/or operate a corporation do (or what a corporation collectively does or doesn't do in accordance with its human management/employees) has nothing to do with what a corporation actually is or isn't. It's still a bits and bytes creation/invention. I believe you're confusing what a corporation is with its function.

 

How can any sane person believe it means separation when through out the whole history of our nation we never had it? Never practice it. As a matter of fact, government has mingled with religion many times.

 

Then how is free exercise being restricted?

 

All of whom during what period?

I guess so. Then again, I never attended any class that required ingestion of LSD, as you evidently did.

 

The government has, and continues, to do a lot of things that don't seem to be in line with the Constitution. So that's a pretty poor argument.

 

What's the difference to your mind?

 

Such a tragically uninformed post, are most of yours.

I can't believe you wrote that. Before the AoC, we were colonies, COLONIES, under the rule of the Sovereign King of Great Britain.

No, the colonies were not "states" - nor were they like "sovereign nations."

How could you get something like that so wrong?

 

BTW, isn't it a BIT ironic that the SAME PEOPLE ....

who warn us of "encroaching Sharia Law" and "Islamic religious fundamentalism taking over our government and judicial system"....

are typically the same ones who want to make sure that fundamentalist Christianity directs our governmental policy unimpeded????

 

When you tell a coach he can't pray with his team, your restricting it. When you tell a school they can sing any religious songs at a Christmas concert, your restricting it. When you forbid a graduate from saying thank God I made it, your restricting it.

 

I know your not talking about me. I have never said I want our government policies directed by religion.

 

Interference is when you want to force each other's policies on the other.

 

That's not true, at all.

Not true. A few did, and they were done away with within a few decades into the 19th century.

 

Now I don't believe in having prayer in school or starting off any public meeting with a prayer, because then your forcing non believers to take part in it. What our forefathers didn't want is to force our religion on anyone. That doesn't mean government has to shield your ears and eyes from anything religious.

 

This is what caused Jefferson to use the word separation of church and state. This is why the USSC ruled separation because of what Jefferson wrote to the Danbury church. But Jefferson may have never used those words except the church didn't quite understand the new First Amendment and were worried that Jefferson would make laws restricting the church. His answer was to assure them he or the First Amendment wouldn't. That it would be like a wall of separation. But that wall he was referring to was interference, not total separation. Government wouldn't interfere with the church and church wouldn't interfere with government. That is what we have been practicing all these years, not separation.

 

It wasn't just Jefferson who used the words

• The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
• 
  
  
  
• Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
• 
  
  
  
• Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
• 
  
  I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
  
  
  
  
  
• To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Much more where that came from, if you're interested.

 

this is what religion teaches we are better than them, and they will kill you! They also need money to do this. To put it bluntly religion shows how stupid the human race is and how gullible they are. These are by and large Republican voting base, they think their God gives them the right to run reckless on others rights. They talk about the constitution and the founding fathers yet they have no clue what they mean. Also to go a step further with some fotur members who believe in mob rule that if they passed a law to kill those that didn't believe as they do it would be not only acceptable but a God given right.

If that is the case and how they want it the government should allow divorce, and a whole host of other religious beliefs they hold. You would see their belief in there myth go away quickly.