No Such Thing As Separation Of Church And State - Hypocrisy ONLY

No Such Thing As Separation Of Church And State - Hypocrisy ONLY

As you can see from the many examples I have presented the separation of church and state is a fallacy. It does not exist. If any ceremony involving an oath swears on a Bible or just simply includes the word supreme being, higher power or God then it automatically becomes a marriage of church and state, not a separation.

Separation of church and state in the United States

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Since the First Amendment clearly places the restrictions solely on the state, some argue a more correct phrase would be the "separation of state FROM church". Either way, the "separation" phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Oath of office of the President of the United States

While the Constitution does not mandate that anyone in particular should administer the oath, the oath is typically administered by the Chief Justice, but sometimes by another federal or state judge (George Washington was first sworn in by Robert Livingston, the chancellor of the State of New York in 1789, while Calvin Coolidge was first sworn in by his father, a Justice of the Peace and a Vermont notary public in 1923). By convention, incoming Presidents raise their right hand and place the left on a Bible or other book while taking the oath of office.

28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Oath of Office

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Colonial and state legislatures also created oaths that required members to swear allegiance to the state and often profess a belief in God as well.

Judicial Branch: Supreme Court Justices

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.'

'

The Constitution of the United States

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

So Help Me God

Controversy over the separation of church and state sometimes clouds this final phrase; nevertheless, it is the most important one in the oath. Our actions have moral and, for those who believe in a Supreme Being, even religious implications. Sometimes military officers seem hesitant to embrace their religion publicly or acknowledge the significance of divine guidance.37 However, American history is replete with examples of public appeals to a higher being for guidance and protection.

The Declaration of Independence includes an appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world”, and, although the Constitution does not include the phrase so help me God in the president’s oath, Washington added those words when he took the first oath.38 President Lincoln openly addressed the concept of divine guidance in the Gettysburg address: “This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” When the pledge of allegiance added the phrase “under God” in 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower commented, “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Our country's neoclassical origins value the morals taught within the Bible--morals that I'm sure you also agree with. In no way does a Judge need to be a follower of any religion. The meaning of separation between church and state is that nobody can force you to believe in anything. Basically, it's because of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation--our founders wanted nothing to do with that. The church is not a point of power in our government and it cannot dictate how we rule.

If any ceremony involving an oath swears on a Bible or just simply includes the word supreme being, higher power or God then it automatically becomes a marriage of church and state, not a separation.

No, that is not true at all. You shouldn't draw conclusions like that. Do you even understand what separation of church and state is?

You might want to familiarize yourself with U.S. and European History before you make such wild assertions.

So, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

here's an okay place to start you off--even if it is just wikipedia, it puts it pretty simply: en.wikipedia.org... --oh wait, you already went to that as your source, so how in the world did you draw your conclusions if you read it already?? Maybe you should use legitimate sources next time--because wikipedia is not one of them. Sure, it's a useful place to start and get yourself acquainted with the ideas associated with a topic, but by no means should it be your first and last source.

I find it quite funny that this is in deconstructing disinformation when your OP is quite literally disinformation--unless that was your point, of course.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Since the First Amendment clearly places the restrictions solely on the state, some argue a more correct phrase would be the "separation of state FROM church".

There it is. Why the founding Fathers split Europe, to get away from the marriage of church and state. The King and Pope hand in hand, ruling through vanity and ignorance.

Inquisition anyone? How about a charge of Heresy?

a reply to: intrptr

Oho! I think it's time to excommunicate you if you don't pay your indulgences!

Yep. You're right.

Actually the "separation of church & state" doctrine dates back to 1947 in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that simply used Thomas Jefferson's writings to "confirm" what the "Founding Fathers" meant by the first amendment. If you look at the wording of the first amendment itself, it says nothing about separation. It just says that the Federal Government should keep its hands off religion. The idea was that no one wanted another official "Church of England" situation where the government dictated what religion you could be.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says you can't make a law against establishing a religion and you can't make laws that interfere with its practice. In fact, you can make a case that prohibiting religious expression by banning it from government venues is against the Constitution. Indeed, a 5-4 decision is pretty close; another court could easily have ruled the opposite.

Ironically, Jefferson did not write the first amendment. The Establishment Clause was written by Fisher Ames, a legislator from Massachusetts. But Jefferson said there ought to be "a wall of separation between church and State." He wrote this in 1802, well after the constitution was a done deal, to a group of Baptists who were upset at the dominant position of some Congregationalists.

So the whole idea that you 'can't pray after a football game because it's against the Constitution" is a bit of a stretch given that what the Constitution SAYS is that the government may not prevent the free exercise of religion.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

additionally, did you read the disclaimer on that other illegitimate source you used?

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the ***freedom of expression***, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

from your source: www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

a reply to: schuyler

and like you said, freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand in hand.

Anyway, OP, the whole point of making oaths is keeping them--so naturally they had to figure out what one would swear to. You can't swear it by your honor because that kind of thing is subject to your perspective and the inherent imperfect nature of humanity. So you cannot swear it upon humanity--you cannot swear it upon nature--because the laws of nature are at-odds with ideal virtue because they lack morality and virtue. Like, if you swore something to nature, what would that mean? What if it's in your nature to be a homicidal maniac? Get where I'm going here?

God, however, is above all of that and is a perfect being of goodness and righteousness and VIRTUE. So, by swearing upon that ideal of perfect moral virtue that is free from the corruption of humanity/nature, then you have the STRONGEST POSSIBLE oath and are bound to do the best in your capability to uphold that oath. That's the point.

originally posted by: schuyler
Actually the "separation of church & state" doctrine dates back to 1947 in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that simply used Thomas Jefferson's writings to "confirm" what the "Founding Fathers" meant by the first amendment. If you look at the wording of the first amendment itself, it says nothing about separation. It just says that the Federal Government should keep its hands off religion. The idea was that no one wanted another official "Church of England" situation where the government dictated what religion you could be.

I always say Separation of Church and State has been established by court cases won.

Legal precedent has defined it.

originally posted by: Annee

I always say Separation of Church and State has been established by court cases won.

Legal precedence has defined it.

You mean legal precedence has CHANGED it.

Look how it has been changed. Originally the First amendment prevented the government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" i.e.: of religion. It has now been "defined" into its exact opposite. Now government CAN "prohibit the free exercise thereof." And all this is because someone found a letter Thomas Jefferson had written many years later to some Baptists who were angry at some Congregationalists basically because the Baptists were vastly outnumbered.

a reply to: Annee

Legal precedent isn't the basis for the establishment of that. Court cases are won all of the time that are not virtuous. If anything, legal precedent merely upholds it or challenges it. But its origins are historical in nature and are a direct reflection of our neoclassical foundations and our unalienable rights. And legal precedence cannot define separation between church & state because the judicial system is one of three branches of government. To argue that legal precedence can have that kind of weight is to deny the balance of powers.

a reply to: schuyler

In terms of legal proceedings, those can always be overturned. I wouldn't say that anything has been altered--just a court case won and precedent established. The right did not disappear after that and can still be argued in a court of law. Precedent changes all of the time.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Annee

I always say Separation of Church and State has been established by court cases won.

Legal precedence has defined it.

You mean legal precedence has CHANGED it.

Look how it has been changed. Originally the First amendment prevented the government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" i.e.: of religion. It has now been "defined" into its exact opposite. Now government CAN "prohibit the free exercise thereof." And all this is because someone found a letter Thomas Jefferson had written many years later to some Baptists who were angry at some Congregationalists basically because the Baptists were vastly outnumbered.

Secular has won in most court cases involving government and religion.

It shows the continuing forward trend.

There is more then just Thomas Jefferson.

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Annee

Legal precedent isn't the basis for the establishment of that. Court cases are won all of the time that are not virtuous. If anything, legal precedent merely upholds it or challenges it. But its origins are historical in nature and are a direct reflection of our neoclassical foundations and our unalienable rights. And legal precedence cannot define separation between church & state because the judicial system is one of three branches of government. To argue that legal precedence can have that kind of weight is to deny the balance of powers.

Secular has won most cases of religion vs government. And continues to.

"Simple"

I'm gonna leave it at that.

originally posted by: rukia
And legal precedence cannot define separation between church & state because the judicial system is one of three branches of government. To argue that legal precedence can have that kind of weight is to deny the balance of powers.

Good point. I had never though of it that way. Here's the government ruling on what the government can and cannot do. It's kind of like the President ruling that he can grant himself executive privileges because he is the President.

I see it as the gov. is not allowed to exclude any religions.

It has been twisted into meaning that all religions shall be excluded.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Since the First Amendment clearly places the restrictions solely on the state, some argue a more correct phrase would be the "separation of state FROM church".

There it is. Why the founding Fathers split Europe, to get away from the marriage of church and state. The King and Pope hand in hand, ruling through vanity and ignorance.

Inquisition anyone? How about a charge of Heresy?

They knew first hand how it felt to have a religion excluded and they sought a system where every religion could have a say if it was followed by people that sought to have a say.

Never did they want to dissect our political system in an attempt to remove any resemblance of religion.

a reply to: Annee

No, that court case was won because of that thomas jefferson thing. (as schuyler explains in greater detail right below this comment of mine)

And by forward did you mean backward?

Imposing a lack of religion is the same as imposing a religion--meaning that both are bad. Look at China and North Korea. Unless you think that they're forward in terms of human rights...

Telling people how to speak/not speak and worship/not worship is at-odds with forward thought.

Being offended just by hearing someone say God is quite laughable. That's like me saying that every time I hear about Satanists, or atheists, or Wiccans, or agnostics, or Buddhists saying anything that supports their belief over mine I somehow get forcefully converted into their systems of belief.

Being offended at all is at-odds with forward thought. It is saying that you think that you should have a right to dictate what somebody else says and does. That is not freedom.

Just because the secular movement has won doesn't mean that it's right--it just means that they have good lawyers. Which is why we are in need of more good lawyers--one of the reasons why I want to be one. I might be a Christian, but I don't want to force anyone to believe what I believe. I cannot force anyone to believe what I believe. Believing has to come from within--not from outside.

Secularism has had a right to exist and all those won cases did was restate that. However, the adoption of the secular movement in governance would be unconstitutional.

If you adopt secularism into our governance, you forgo separation of church and state by allowing the state to ban the church. AND you totally destroy the values our country was founded upon. So then, where do we draw our definition of moral virtue from? Ourselves? As I explained in a previous post, that would utterly lack moral virtue because human nature is not wholly virtuous.

Also (out of curiosity) what did you mean by "Simple"? I don't follow.

originally posted by: Annee

There is more then just Thomas Jefferson.

Of course, but it was Jefferson's writings that the court used to justify its decision, not "something more." They were attempting to address the issue of what the Framers actually meant. So rather than stop with what the words said, which were unequivocal by saying government should keep out of it, they chose instead to cite a letter written decades later to "explain" it. And the phrase Jefferson himself used, "a wall of separation between church and state" has been used ever since. Without Jefferson, there is no case, and they cherry-picked it. There must be hundreds of what could be called "pro-religion" statements uttered by those who were there at the time, all of which were ignored. They couldn't go citing George Washington's belief in God when they were trying to further the agenda of secularization.

a reply to: schuyler

If you look at the wording of the first amendment itself, it says nothing about separation. It just says that the Federal Government should keep its hands off religion. The idea was that no one wanted another official "Church of England" situation where the government dictated what religion you could be.

They could't say separation church and state because it would never have passed, they would have made a restriction regarding the free exercise of religion and by their own edict they knew that was impossible. Besides, the religious folk would have fits.

But as a group they knew the inherent dangers of merging church and state. It didn't have to be explained to them. Their English / European backgrounds made them all too aware of what happens when the church meddles in the affairs of state.

So they publicly stated hands off, but privately they meant both ways.

a reply to: intrptr

Would you please elaborate further on your meaning by that last line of what you said? You lost me.

ty in advance

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

There is something you have either ignored or overlooked.

Oaths with statements to god and times when officials have placed their hand on the bible are all OPTIONAL.

There is no mandate stating that it must be done therefore the separation clause is upheld.

a reply to: deadeyedick

They knew first hand how it felt to have a religion excluded and they sought a system where every religion could have a say if it was followed by people that sought to have a say.

Contrarily, they knew the dangers of mixing religion and politics. They didn't state it so much, they didn't say big business couldn't mix with the affairs of state (of by and for the people), either.

It was implicit, they had their PC drama back then, too.

But the intent was to keep power bases of any kind from infecting, diluting and replacing their fledgling notions of, by and for the people.

The battle to win this Republic for the very people is evident in the Bill of Rights. It isn't part of the Constitution, its a separate document, only allowed at the last moment if the Kings men got their right to have Judges for Life.

The battle for freedom wasn't a sure thing, the forces that wanted to subvert individual liberty and make it a slave to religion or the state are/were as prevalent then as they are today-- and they knew it.


.