Separation of Church and State

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Murgatroid

Um... Ok... You managed to not answer my question and started talking about lies. The answer to my question has nothing to do with who or who isn't lying to you. It's just a simple yes or no question. Do you think that separation of church and state is a good thing and promotes religious equality?

I'll answer it.

The separation of church and state, in regards to the government not making laws censoring religion is good. But, the separation of church and state is not lawful.

The original purpose of this post was to point out that the most widely used argument against the governments involvement, particularly displaying religious symbols, is inherently not accurate.

The separation of church and state is not in the constitution anywhere, and I challenge anyone to find it, as it was originally written. So in that regards, it is very bad - as it promotes further ignorance and use of invalid arguments against a system that was put into place by our founders.

Again - the purpose of this whole thread is not to hold up any certain religion, but to point out that separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in our constitution, as originally pointed out in my very first post.

So it doesn't matter if Separation of Church and state is good or bad, it is not constitutional - and treating it as such is to do a grave injustice to our founding fathers, and all those who died to uphold the constitution.

a reply to: MentorsRiddle

Except while the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution, one can easily deduce that meaning by reading the first amendment.

Here's the part about religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The first part says Congress cannot make a law that promotes a specific religion and the second part says that it cannot make one that inhibits. In other words keep government out of religion or separation of church and state.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
This statement is in regards to the government not establishing a national church, such as they had with the Church of England. Not to keep religion out of government. This is backed up and confirmed by citation of the founding fathers.

You have the second part spot on.

The problem is that historians and lawmakers know full and well what the constitution says, and means. But the lawmakers also know how to manipulate words, and twist their meaning into something they are not.

This is a game of semantics.

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
a reply to: Krazysh0t
This statement is in regards to the government not establishing a national church, such as they had with the Church of England. Not to keep religion out of government. This is backed up and confirmed by citation of the founding fathers.

Those two things are pretty much the same thing. If the government gives preferential treatment to a religion, it is establishing it as a state sponsored religion. The reason Thomas Jefferson clarified the separation of church and state issue is EXACTLY for people like you trying to make a difference between the two phrases.

You have the second part spot on.

The problem is that historians and lawmakers know full and well what the constitution says, and means. But the lawmakers also know how to manipulate words, and twist their meaning into something they are not.

This is a game of semantics.

Like I said, separation of church and state is the fairest way for government to be involved with religion. There are just too many religions for government to honor each of them fairly so it makes more sense not to honor any of them. This is been how the 1st amendment has been interpreted pretty much since Thomas Jefferson penned the term separation of church and state.

Those two things are pretty much the same thing. If the government gives preferential treatment to a religion, it is establishing it as a state sponsored religion. The reason Thomas Jefferson clarified the separation of church and state issue is EXACTLY for people like you trying to make a difference between the two phrases.

These are not the same thing. If a body of government chooses to display a religious item, it does not mean that it is forced upon the people. People have a right to worship whatever they want. A community court, or body of government should be allowed to put whatever religious symbols out they wish. To say they cannot is infringing on the second half of the 1st amendment, which forbids any law being created inhibiting the freedom of religion. This is further clarified in founding fathers cited works, which can be read in previous posts.

Just because something sounds similar doesn’t mean they are the exact same thing.

If I described a human being, and a chimp on genetic terms, they would appear to be very similar – but are totally different things.

Like I said, separation of church and state is the fairest way for government to be involved with religion. There are just too many religions for government to honor each of them fairly so it makes more sense not to honor any of them. This is been how the 1st amendment has been interpreted pretty much since Thomas Jefferson penned the term separation of church and state.

This has not been how the 1st amendment has been interpreted since the beginning, again, as cited in founding father’s works.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic – as I said, semantics. The problem with semantics is that it keeps arguments circular.

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
These are not the same thing. If a body of government chooses to display a religious item, it does not mean that it is forced upon the people. People have a right to worship whatever they want. A community court, or body of government should be allowed to put whatever religious symbols out they wish. To say they cannot is infringing on the second half of the 1st amendment, which forbids any law being created inhibiting the freedom of religion. This is further clarified in founding fathers cited works, which can be read in previous posts.

No, not allowing a government office from displaying a religious symbol is not religious oppression. A government office isn't a person therefore if it displays a religious symbol, it is endorsing that religion over other religions. That is in fact oppressing the religions that aren't represented.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
These are not the same thing. If a body of government chooses to display a religious item, it does not mean that it is forced upon the people. People have a right to worship whatever they want. A community court, or body of government should be allowed to put whatever religious symbols out they wish. To say they cannot is infringing on the second half of the 1st amendment, which forbids any law being created inhibiting the freedom of religion. This is further clarified in founding fathers cited works, which can be read in previous posts.

No, not allowing a government office from displaying a religious symbol is not religious oppression. A government office isn't a person therefore if it displays a religious symbol, it is endorsing that religion over other religions. That is in fact oppressing the religions that aren't represented.

Absolutely it is endorsing it. I agree with that 100%.

But there is no law which says it cannot endorse. There is a law saying it can't respect an establishment, or a nationally enforced church.

They are allowed to endorse all day long.

This is not oppressing the religions that aren't represented. Any religion can petition to have a religious symbol displayed.

Even the Satan worshipers petitioned to have their symbols represented - I disagree with their ideals, but they have the right according to our constitution.

a reply to: MentorsRiddle

You are missing my point that by endorsing one, they have to implicitly endorse all of them. Since there are so many religions and new ones pop up all the time, the only fair way to go about something like that is to not endorse any religions. Otherwise the government could be swamped by petitions from every obscure religion demanding that their religious symbol be placed up on the government building. Then there is space for all these symbols. You brought up Satanism and being allowed to put their imagery on a government building. It's nice that you are ok with it, but there are many Christians in this country where that would not sit well with them at all, and they would complain to no end about it. It is all a huge headache. The simplest way to go about things is to just not honor any religion, then you don't have to deal with that nonsense. Hence the separation of church and state doctrine.

You are missing my point that by endorsing one, they have to implicitly endorse all of them. Since there are so many religions and new ones pop up all the time, the only fair way to go about something like that is to not endorse any religions. Otherwise the government could be swamped by petitions from every obscure religion demanding that their religious symbol be placed up on the government building. Then there is space for all these symbols. You brought up Satanism and being allowed to put their imagery on a government building. It's nice that you are ok with it, but there are many Christians in this country where that would not sit well with them at all, and they would complain to no end about it. It is all a huge headache. The simplest way to go about things is to just not honor any religion, then you don't have to deal with that nonsense. Hence the separation of church and state doctrine.

I honestly am not missing your point. I understand very well what you are trying to convey. I am truly not trying to be argumentative.

You said the only fair way to go about something is to not endorse it at all. Fairness is an illusion. It always has been.

Please don’t think me callous by saying that. But if we do what you say, then how is it fair to the Christians who want to display a cross, Jews who want to display the Star of David, or any other religious icon being displayed by those who want to display them? That isn’t fair – it’s still favoring one groups opinions over the others.

Just to be clear – I am not ok with Satan worshipers putting up their signs, I totally disagree with Satanism – but according to the constitution they are allowed to. I was just making a point with this.

Here is how I think it should work:

A state should take a vote by the people, within said state, on if they wish to allow religious symbols in government buildings: schools, court houses, etc. Then it should be further broken down by counties what symbols should be allowed to be displayed. This would satisfy the majority of the population in that area.

The Federal government should have no say so on what buildings received what – and leave that entirely up to the state, then furthermore to the counties or parishes. The Federal government should stay out of what States wish to do, so long as it doesn’t break the constitution – and in this case it wouldn’t.

This way the people get what they want, as intended by our forefathers.

Doing things the simple way is a good way to bring about the end of Democracy. Often times the hard way gives the best results. I think we can both agree on that.



Despite our opposing views on this – I want to say I understand your position, and I respect your right to that opinion and position. It is my hope we can close this debate as friends, but still respectfully maintain our own separate positions. After all that’s what our republic is all about.

.