that the term "separation of church and state" would fall off the face of the freaking planet! There is no such thing! On a lighter note, what's up with that rabbi going all hardcore on the christians? I mean muslims bashing jews, muslims bashing christians, even sometimes christians bashing muslims... all pretty normal stuff. but a jewish person bashing a christian? doesn't seem very common. and really? a religious organization is going to riot and attack other religions because a football star of the same beliefs won the superbowl? LOL.... right.
What do you mean there is no such thing as the separation of church and state? It's in the Bible, Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21, Luke 20:25 so it must be real.
Well, if you want to be ignorant and take those verses out of context fine. It still doesn't say that church and state must be separate. That was just talking about ownership. Rights of the government and rights of God. Besides, the constitution is law in America, not the Bible.
Caesar (according to history) was an individual man. Scripture said to render unto that man what is that mans'. The scripture said nothing about a State government.
Then what is the purpose of your inference toward the 1st Amendment? That language (as already pointed out) is not contained in the 1st Amendment.
The exact phrase 'a wall of separation between church and state' is not in the Constitution. Neither is 'separation of powers' or 'interstate commerce' or 'right to privacy' but all are recognized Constitutional principles.
Thats a bull argument for the term "separation of church and state" when the amendment clearly says something far different.
No. That's a good argument aginst your poor interpretation of the first amendment. The exact phrase was used in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists assuring them their church would be safe from the government infringing on their rights by not having government and religion interfere with each other which is only possible by having a 'wall of separation' between them. If you'd like to have the government telling you who, what and how to worship, by all means move to one of the countries that does just that. If you don't want to move and you want to keep your right to worship as you see fit, stop grumbling and embrace that wall.
You just supported what I, and the first amendment, says. "by not having government and religion interfere" There are atheists, however, suing because public buildings want to decorate with christian stuff. well if the governor is a christian why shouldnt he be allowed to act that way? They act like in order to be in a position of power you must forsake all your beliefs and never speak of them or think about them. To me thats stupid. All the law is for is to ensure the government doesn't force religious ideas on people, which can include the lack thereof.
A private letter does not carry the weight and force of Congress as a body. It is merely the opinion of one congressman. BTW: The opposite is also true. If you don't like the idea of congress protecting the rights of the people to worship in the manner they choose, then you too can leave the country. "the people" also includes such people as the Governors of each state. So if a Governor, due to his/her religious convictions, declares a state day of prayer,,,,, just embrace that day of prayer.
Having a representative show favor to one religion over another is exactly the type of interference the first amendment strives to not allow. The Governor can decorate his own property any way he or she sees fit. Property owned by the taxpayers is another matter entirely. They don't stop being a Christian because they hold public office but they also don't get to push their religion on others in any fashion they choose either. They take an oath when they take office to uphold the Constitution and that separation is a part of that oath. If they don't like it, they don't need to take the position. Them's the breaks.
Nobody said the letter carried any weight other than explaining the intent of that one exact portion of the first amendment in clear and certain terms that a group of Baptists or you and I could understand. I also said nothing about not liking Congress protecting the rights of the people to worship as they choose; you also seem a little confused on exactly how that protection comes about. The Constitution doesn't make them the shield. The Constitution protects by shielding us from Congress.
Well that is good that you don't recognize it as having any weight or authority as coming from Congress, because it did not. Then you presumably being a non-theist, will explain to your fellow non-theists that their arguments using that letter to support their claims on a so-called wall of separation of Church and State has no legal standing. It was a private letter from one man ... not representing the official Opinion of Congress.
Nobody points at that letter as to create a legal standing for the separation of church and state. Instead, that letter is pointed at to show what one of the authors of those documents meant and intended for the interpretation of a part of one of those documents. To ignore this would be the same as ignoring any author discussing their own book, article, poem or screenplay; you don't have to listen to or heed what they say, but the fault is on you and not them for doing so. What I would actually explain to anyone who wants the legal standing for that wall of separation is the multiple times it's been tried in the Supreme Court. If you have some reason that we shoukd ignore their decisions on the matter, I'd love to hear it. Feel free to look those up at your own leisure. There's over twenty standout decisions since the 40's that can be researched, but the one you can focus on for your legal standing is Lemon vs Kurtzman 1971, which established the Lemon Test, which is used expressly for ensuring that the wall of separation is not breached. Do a little research and get back to me, unless your next move is gonna be where you need links from me because you can't operate a search engine for yourself. If you do check those cases out or the Lemon Test, I'd be glad to hear your conclusions. Take care.
Umm, ok. Hmmm, this sounds to me like a good argument for why state must be separated from church. PS: Just in case the following should somehow be relevant to your perception, separation between state and church does not mean separation between man and religion.
Then, in essence, that letter serves the legal purpose of an affidavit. The written statement of an individual, which letter is used as evidence from a witness regarding a particular matter. Cool. Then why are the written statements of Christians routinely rejected as evidence in regard to those same particular matters? Is his affidavit any better than mine? If so, what makes his affidavit better than mine? What criteria is being used in making such a conclusion? I have stated my reason for disagreeing with you on numerous occasions on this forum: But for the sake of clarifying the present situation I will submit that reason once again: A man or woman grows to adulthood under the teachings of family, friends, authority figures (which include church officials), and some grow without the influence of authority figures such as church officials. Those things that they are taught in early childhood, have an impact on their manner of thinking and of making judgments. When that same person is elected or appointed to a public office, that person will carry with them those teachings received in childhood, and those teachings will influence their decisions while serving in that public office. See here: http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/186-Ginsburg ""Justice, justice, thou shalt pursue," the Old Testament words Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg keeps on the wall of her chambers, epitomize the outlook and achievement of this distinguished jurist."" As demonstrated above, I am correct in my stance with regard to those elected officials carrying with them to their office the teachings (or lack of teachings) which do influence their decisions. There is no separation of Church and State. Perhaps you should have done a little deeper research. As demonstrated above, decisions are influenced by the church teachings or in the case of non-theists, their lack of church teachings and a reliance on the teachings of such people as Hitchens. First you should make an attempt to refute what one of the Supreme Court Justices was noted for having in her office as a reminder to her. BTW: at least I had the courtesy of providing a link that kept you from having to merely accept your word or have to embark of a long search.
That separation is NOT part of that oath! How is him decorating stuff with christmas stuff an influence on trying to make you christian? What crap! Why should Wlamart get sued or have people refuse to shop there if they say shop for christmas or merry christmas. That is THAT company's choice you cannot tell them otherwise. Besides, it is the job of EVERY Christian to spread the word of God, so even telling a christian to shut up about it is against their very religion.
I'll be happy to respond to the rest if I get an appropriate response to what I post here. From the top: The letter is not used in any legal sense except for helping Supreme Court Justices in interpreting the establishment clause. It wasn't given under oath. It wasn't created to be submitted as a legal document. It was never submitted for approval by any authority. It was an assurance from an author to a group of Baptists that were concerned about the work he collaborated on. It's not an affidavit in any sense. Why should we take his word over the word of others? He actually helped write the item in question, while you and other Christians that want to contend with what is in that letter did not have a hand in creating said item. Why would Shakespeare or Stephen King have more say than anyone else on what's in any of their work? Now we take the Incorporeal Shift and abandon what was actually being discussed to go off on a tangeant about how you can't separate a person from their faith. What's interesting here is that I agree with you and already stated as much prior to you even posting this diatribe. You strike me as an intelligent person so I am curious as to why the vast majority of your posts degrade whatever conversation you happen to be in by muddying them with obfuscation, red herrings, strawmen, unnecessary semantics and utterly transparent tactics and ploys. Which brings me to those previous encounters we've had, like pointing out how a court is an incorporeal being completely unprompted for absolutely no reason whatsoever and when you were asked why you posted that you remained silent. Then there was the song and dance over the term 'religious right' where you went from acting like you didn't know what it meant to scoffing at being shown what it was to backpeddling into the utterly weak explanation of wanting to supposedly know what their version of the term meant to them. How about the more recent one with the discussion being about treating people unfairly because of labels and prejudice where you decided it was an appropriate time to spew textual diarrhea about whether not 'a shoe fits'? Give me one good reason to not treat you as the troll you've been acting like, that I should continue responding to you or else we can part ways right here.
It is a part of his oath. He can't show favoritism toward one religion over another. It's the same oath that a Muslim takes when they take office to not use tax money to promote their religion to the exclusion of anyone else's. Walmart getting sued(or whatever the real story might happen to be) is a completely separate issue. That is a private business and not a public office funded by taxpayers(barring subsidies and tax breaks,etc, but this too is another whole topic). I agree with you that Walmart should be able to post Merry Christmas without being sued, but this has nothing to do with the separation of church and state whatsoever.
They consider it along the same lines. Atheists say it is unconstitutional that they have to see that or whatever. Which is just idiotic. I don't know if they were actually sued, but I know walmart had some serious attacks on using the word Christmas. And define favoritism. Because if I am a political leader and a christian, I wouldn't spend any money of one religion over another. But I would attend a christian church, encourage others to attend, and even declare that I and some local buddies wish to hold a prayer vigil and that anyone is invited, but it is in no way mandatory. Do you consider these actions favoritism? Because Christians would consider all of those things necessary to BE a true christian. Where is the line drawn?
