Separation of Chuch and State does not apply to....

The ACLU supports the separation of religion and government as a bulwark in protecting everyone's freedom to practice the religion of their choice or no religion at all. The Washington Constitution has strong provisions upholding this principle. Article I, Section 11 states, "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment." And Article IX, Section 4 states, "All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence."

Aid to Religious Schools

Citing the state constitution, the ACLU challenged a state program that provides financial aid to students attending religion-affiliated colleges. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Mary Gallwey, a longtime Washington State University professor who objects to public funding of schools with a religious mission.

In 1990 the state legislature passed the Educational Opportunities Grant program which awards cash grants to students who attend colleges close to home, including nine schools with religious affiliations.

Among schools receiving support are ones which give preference to members of a specific church in hiring staff, requirestudents to take classes in scripture and religious doctrine, and expect professors to resign if they cannot accept church beliefs.


In previous similar cases, the court had ruled against the use of state money to support schools with religious affiliations and found that it does not matter whether the funding goes to the school directly or is channeled through students attending it.

But in June, 2002, the Washington Supreme Court found that the state constitution's provisions separating religion and government apply to elementary and secondary schools, not to colleges and universities. Cooperating attorney Jay Brown and staff attorney Aaron Caplan handled the case for the ACLU.

www.aclu-wa.org...

www.aclu-wa.org...

See attached with respect issues concerning alternative systems of beleif, beyond those presented

www.j21c.org...

And just to round this out......

"Conversion to Islam", "Conversion to Christianity" and "Conversion to Judaism" or even "Conversion to Hinduism", are conversions to a religious belief. As a religion, followers are free to practice those beliefs in there homes, churches, mosques, or synygoges. Forcing any of these beliefs on others are against the democratic freedoms we all enjoy.

If Islam is not a religion, but a governmental policy that must be followed and that dictates man's law and religious law, (because it is deemed the "law") for all followers, than it must be considered a governmental body of a country within a country. Islam is forcing its beliefs on all nations and peoples of the world and is against all democratic principles.

If the above is true, that Islam is not a religion but a governmental body, then it stands to reason that Islam is in search of its own nation to govern. The followers of Islam will go to any lengths to achieve that goal. This we have all seen in recent years in countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Indonesia, to name a few.

Any thoughts?

Yes, this inability to identify religion from state is the very reason we have separation from church and state. Have you ever read Leon Uris's (God rest his soul ) "The Haj". If not, read it. It is wonderful, and such an eye-opener to the culture that mind-set that is created when the government is the church is the government is your life.

That seems to be what is happening right now.

There seems to be some confusion...only the Federal Government is bounded by the Constitution to have Church and State seperated.

If a State does not have that clause in their constitution then it's fair game (though the feds like to try and intervene).

In this case it seems the State also has a clause denying the unity of church and state.

But as long as they give equal money to all religious schools, there is no problem.

The ACLU is just a peice of crap these days....picking fights that only worsen the situation.

I disagree Freemason not with respect to the issue of the Fed vs. State but with regard to the rest of your comments. The problem is, this is not the only State that allows separation of church and state to be compromised in some respect.

In every way its unethical

And fighting it tooth and nail makes perfect sense.

Its those who respond to what the ACLU does as being worthless, that do not see what otherwise would occur if they did not respond in this way are gravley mistaken.


Any thoughts?



[Edited on 22-7-2003 by Toltec]

FreeMason, your wrong.

A Separation of Church/State is a federal law, then it has to be followed in every state.

You have no clue how many people have sued states when there have been Christmas trees and Hannakah (sp?) candles in public places like court houses... and have won.

Well, ACTUALLY, a state can pass a law in contradiction to a federal law...and it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court where they can rule on the state and/or federal law concerning the constitutionality of each.

So the laws passed by each are the question here. What Illmatic says is righter than wrong, it is the CONSTITUTION that says this and states are bound by the federal constitution first, and their own second.

[Edited on 22-7-2003 by Valhall]

Wow! Cagain, I've read through the constitution and again I've found nothing about seperation of church and state. I doubt I ever will. Reason being is its not there.

The Founding Fathers didn't intend on having a seperation of church and state. It was expected that the society be on of Judeo-Christian belief. What was not expected was one sect (denomination) to be the official religion, to have a state church or to tithe to a state coffer.

So, why was the first Amendment viwed in one way for decdes and then be viewed another way, beginning in the late '50's? In a nutshell? The destruction of America and its culture. Make the people be sheep that received there "morals" from the government, cound comfort and security in the government and placed there belief in the government. That would not happen while the people were actually strong, devout believers in God.

I do believe they had an intention of separation of church and state. But I believe that you are correct that the phrase "separation of church and state" has now been bastardized...happened last century.

With the original intent being that no official federal religion would be established or officialized, in order to prevent the persecution that had taken place in England, it has now been adulterated into nobody can have any religion any where in public; faith can't be anywhere on any governmental property or proceeding; and public officials must conduct themselves as if they are atheist while in office. And this is just ABSOLUTELY not what was intended. Furthermore, it was not intended to take faith out of our schools. What bothers me the most is that the federal government is so involved in this issue on a local level. With the original intent being that local governments and peoples would decide how their schools were to be ran, we now have this hideous situation where school systems are in constant threat of federal action lest they and their people decide they actually want faith-based actions in their school system.

I sure hope all this changes...but it appears it's only getting worse.

In World War 2 people of different faiths fought together all lived in this country, the same applies
to every other war fought since then.

What was and is included in the speech presented by many in command of those armies with respect to those differences in religion?

If a man of a different faith dies for your country how do you place a value on what he did?

Perhaps that is a reasons our government changed its policies.

I would ask that if the shoe was on the other foot how would others feel?

Personally I feel things they way they are today is a good idea.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Wow! Cagain, I've read through the constitution and again I've found nothing about seperation of church and state. I doubt I ever will. Reason being is its not there.

The Founding Fathers didn't intend on having a seperation of church and state. It was expected that the society be on of Judeo-Christian belief. What was not expected was one sect (denomination) to be the official religion, to have a state church or to tithe to a state coffer.

So, why was the first Amendment viwed in one way for decdes and then be viewed another way, beginning in the late '50's? In a nutshell? The destruction of America and its culture. Make the people be sheep that received there "morals" from the government, cound comfort and security in the government and placed there belief in the government. That would not happen while the people were actually strong, devout believers in God.

Establishment Clause

Quote from the Establishment Clause "separation of church and state", '67.

From link related to alternative systems of belief which began thread

During the latter decades of the Twentieth Century church-state debate focused primarily on the Christian Right which openly organized as a political movement to confront such issues as school prayer and abortion. Largely ignored by media and scholars has been the growing political influence of religious movements outside of traditional Judeo-Christianity, particularly those characterized as Christian-Environmental, New Age, Neo-Pagan, Environmental, and Native American. Why these movements have been ignored is a factor of their perceived relative novelty or size. Assumed to be small in comparison to traditional Judeo-Christian religions they are overlooked or incorrectly assumed to be small in influence.

However, these movements are neither small nor inconsequential. Advocating universal pantheism, they are multiplying independently and within established Christian churches and other established religions. In February, 1998, the Guardian reported that Pope John Paul II had urgently ordered the preparation of an encyclical to confront New Age religious philosophy. The Guardian stated, "If, as reports from Rome suggest, a rare encyclical is issued, it will be a measure of the alarm new age thinking provokes at the highest levels in the church." The Guardian described the New Age movement as "an amorphous collection of spiritual ideas ranging from wicca, shamanism, and neo-paganism to the human potential movement and astrology."

TC 1/2 the reason I prepared this post the way I did was in respect to the above comment (as well as the rather long article included).

The perspective presented on Islam with respect to Christianity, taking into consideration what today is fact.

Suggest that in reality, the two are no different (with respect to the main points offered in the initial post with regard to Islam).

To all Any thoughts?

Why is Islam being talked about on a thread about separation of church and state?


TC, what?

'67, the question was where in the Establishment Clause (in the 1st Amendment) do you find the words "separartion of church and state"?

Toltec, you have a good point, and that point is that it is (or should be) left up to the individual states as to how the citizenry want their state to be, as long as it does not violate the constitution. The fact that the republican form of government has been destroyed is demonstarble in the fact that the federal government is controlling that which was meant to be controlled by the states. Social reengineering that has been taking place the last few decades would not be possible if things were as they ought to be.

No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment

interesting then....that on the money it says "In God We Trust"... f***ing hypocracy....

I don't get it, christians influence tons of stuff. They influence laws on abortion, T Cell research(legal/illegal) and so forth, yet they don't pay taxes. Of course, seperation of church and state could account for this, but then it influences the government.

"In God we trust." is on everything governmental. Heck, to swear in under oath you have to do it on a bible and swear to god you won't lie. But what if you don't believe in god? Does that mean you can lie away? If they get you for lieing under oath, what oath? I don't believe in the guy you made me swear to, so the oath means nothing. Or, to pledge allegence(sp?) to this country have to say under god. But, where is god? It isn't in the clouds no matter how much the bible and christians try to make it seem like it is. So how do you know we are under it?

Then of course the money all says in god we trust. Hypocrits.

Under God wasn't in the original pledge...it was added later. Food for thought....

Illmatic you are wrong...it is not "Federal Law" that church and state must be seperated, it is Constitutional Law that no Federal organization can be favored to one Church over another.

While States can not go against the US Constitution when it applies to them, something such as making a faith-based state funded program is not inhibited to the State unless the state makes it illegal or unconstitutional in their State Constitution.

The Federal Government technically should not intervene in such, but has.

Interesting that we have this many people replying to this thread yet there are almost as many variations on what the founding fathers meant when they created the documents controlling the government. I even see one writing indicating that the Christian began in the latter half of the 20th century (that would floor the first popularly elected president!). If nothing else, this has proven one thing, and that thing is that people are ignorant of the facts, and it is my suspicious little opinion that this ignorance was created intentionally by the ones that have desires of controlling us.

Another tidbit, in 1638 the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (often called the first American Constitution) said, We "enter into a combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which we now profess." It also stated for the first time that men's rights come from God, as later stated in the Declaration of Independence.

An important thing to understand, and even if one did not believe in the specific God of Christianity he understood the importance of the concept, by acknowledging the fact our human rights come from God and not government the Founding Fathers were saying the rights the constitution were protecting were rights not given by the government, therefore were rights that could not be taken away from the populace by the government. That is what makes the rights "unalienable". The government can only place a lien on that which they either own or give, as God is above their authority and jurisdiction, they cannot place a lien on what He has given you.