Separation of Church and State?!

This thread went into a different direction than I intended so I'm changing the words of it so hopefully it will be removed.

It was created so we didnt become what England was. When religion can dictate law, its a theocracy, and not a republic. Look at many countries in the middle east, where its a theocracy. See how much violence is caused by it? Removing the religion from government keeps the religion from hurting many.

Originally posted by chancemusky
It was created so we didnt become what England was. When religion can dictate law, its a theocracy, and not a republic. Look at many countries in the middle east, where its a theocracy. See how much violence is caused by it? Removing the religion from government keeps the religion from hurting many.

I'm against organized religion. That's not what I mean by church. I just think that if true spiritual concepts were integrated into politics, like love, truth, compassion, and equality, this country could take a turn for the better

I think it's great !
No one can burn me at the stake or stone me to death for reading science books
or studying other systems of thought outside the the narrow confines of religious thinking.
A theocratic government would be hell for free thinkers.

Everybody knows that "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution itself, right? And that only in the 1st Amendment does it say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

It is a basic principle that in my opinion is one of the most important in the Constitution. It not only limits the influence that religion plays in the choices and the positioning of the government, it allows for equal and fair civil liberties.
Look at the Crusades. Wars fought at a massive cost, both in flesh and in economic costs. Those wars have led to centuries of hate between Christians and Muslims.

Imagine if the United States Government was influenced by a Christian theology. This would lead to laws passed in favor of Christians, and by its very nature, would be prejudiced towards everyone else. Imagine the great minds of Albert Einstein or Hawking, who were atheists. Their discoveries may never have been acknowledged had the US government been Christian influenced. Look at the Holy Roman Empire in Europe during the Middle Ages. Look at the Catholic church and its power.

Replace Christianity with ________ and the idea is the same.

I feel this video is a pretty good demonstration as to why religion should be kept out of politics

I'm not talking about failed organized systems of the past, so labels such as theocracy, or religion, aren't what this is about. I'm pointing in the direction of something new that works and works for everyone equally in the name of what is right and free from corruption.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Ohh, well, nothing against that. You cna bring morals in whenever you want, so long as your political system doesnt only follow one set religion

i think its impossible to do politics without some sort of guideline

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I was just thinking. What is the purpose of this law of the constitution?

I think it was an early political agenda to empower the few elite. An attempt to separate spirituality from politics to gain control over all of those that would be empowered by spiritual ethics. Once spirituality didn't have a say in political affairs, the political elite were enabled to gain further control and wealth. In my opinion.

Shoot, in my opinion, there are probably a lot of laws created to empower the few elite for their own private agendas. F That!

Dear smithjustinb,

This is what the Constitution says, "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 never mentioned separation of church and state that is a interpretation by the courts. The Amendment was meant to prohibit a state religion. What is little discussed in the second phrase, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I find it very sad when people quote the constitution and in reality have no idea what it says, the idea of the separation of church and state was a letter written by Jefferson

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

Jeffersons Wall

Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

reply to post by NuroSlam


Dear NuroSlam,

Yes Jefferson was one of the first to use the term; however, it was the courts that enforced the interpretation and it has not been consistently seen the same way. Jefferson is not the authority for the Constitution he was one of many. Lots of things he wanted were modified. By the way, Jefferson didn't even think we needed to ensure some of the rights that later were protected by the first ten amendments. I do in fact know my Constitution.

One of my professors was a non-believer and wrote the following book Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction. He author was the person who showed me that the founding fathers did not believe in separation of church and state, they actually hired missionaries to preach to the indians and did many other things that would be considered illegal today.

reply to post by AQuestion


Strictly speaking, the idea of the separation of church and state, regardless of the courts interpenetration, does not exist in the bill of rights or the constitution. today its as if the wording has been reversed, that the people cannot chose to express what they may wish to believe and that the government must persecute them for it. Take for example the idea of a valedictorian praising their faith in Jesus and being attacked for it by not just the schools but by groups that espouse "protecting your rights". At no point is the government indoctrination camps "i.e. public schools" endorsing this view but are in fact violating the free excise there of.

And no, I don't believe

p.s. thanks for the link, i'll check out the book

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by chancemusky
It was created so we didnt become what England was. When religion can dictate law, its a theocracy, and not a republic. Look at many countries in the middle east, where its a theocracy. See how much violence is caused by it? Removing the religion from government keeps the religion from hurting many.

I'm against organized religion. That's not what I mean by church. I just think that if true spiritual concepts were integrated into politics, like love, truth, compassion, and equality, this country could take a turn for the better

The problem is Politics is based on lies, and deceit. Politicians are rich greedy people that seek nothing but to better themselves through their corrupt one party system.

Truth doesn't exist in politics, nor does love, compassion, or equality.

Money corrupts everyone but a select few that see theres more to life then materialistic needs. And those few are not rich people, thus they would never make it in the political world.

Politics will never bring peace to our world.... it will only ever cause seperation.

A broken system, suited to a broken world...

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by chancemusky
It was created so we didnt become what England was. When religion can dictate law, its a theocracy, and not a republic. Look at many countries in the middle east, where its a theocracy. See how much violence is caused by it? Removing the religion from government keeps the religion from hurting many.

I'm against organized religion. That's not what I mean by church. I just think that if true spiritual concepts were integrated into politics, like love, truth, compassion, and equality, this country could take a turn for the better

The problem is Politics is based on lies, and deceit. Politicians are rich greedy people that seek nothing but to better themselves through their corrupt one party system.

Truth doesn't exist in politics, nor does love, compassion, or equality.

Money corrupts everyone but a select few that see theres more to life then materialistic needs. And those few are not rich people, thus they would never make it in the political world.

Politics will never bring peace to our world.... it will only ever cause seperation.

A broken system, suited to a broken world...

Dear Akragon,

I know you speak from you heart, I hear it in your words. Nothing corrupts except that we lie to ourselves. Eventually all lies fail, they reach their end. Then we have nothing left but the truth, a process not a result. It is perfection, trust in it

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Strictly speaking, the idea of the separation of church and state, regardless of the courts interpenetration, does not exist in the bill of rights or the constitution. today its as if the wording has been reversed, that the people cannot chose to express what they may wish to believe and that the government must persecute them for it. Take for example the idea of a valedictorian praising their faith in Jesus and being attacked for it by not just the schools but by groups that espouse "protecting your rights". At no point is the government indoctrination camps "i.e. public schools" endorsing this view but are in fact violating the free excise there of.

And no, I don't believe

p.s. thanks for the link, i'll check out the book

edit on 30-5-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)

Dear NuroSlam,

And neither did my beloved Professor Cord. His book is a example of the truth, the best as he knew it, not what he wanted it to be. I was an agnostic when I met him, he was a non-believer open to all possibilities. I had no spiritual beliefs; but, I did care about others being free to believe as they chose. He explained how that could be accomplished and about the constitution. He changed my life

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by chancemusky
It was created so we didnt become what England was. When religion can dictate law, its a theocracy, and not a republic. Look at many countries in the middle east, where its a theocracy. See how much violence is caused by it? Removing the religion from government keeps the religion from hurting many.

I'm against organized religion. That's not what I mean by church. I just think that if true spiritual concepts were integrated into politics, like love, truth, compassion, and equality, this country could take a turn for the better

The problem is Politics is based on lies, and deceit. Politicians are rich greedy people that seek nothing but to better themselves through their corrupt one party system.

Truth doesn't exist in politics, nor does love, compassion, or equality.

Money corrupts everyone but a select few that see theres more to life then materialistic needs. And those few are not rich people, thus they would never make it in the political world.

Politics will never bring peace to our world.... it will only ever cause seperation.

A broken system, suited to a broken world...

Dear Akragon,

I know you speak from you heart, I hear it in your words. Nothing corrupts except that we lie to ourselves. Eventually all lies fail, they reach their end. Then we have nothing left but the truth, a process not a result. It is perfection, trust in it

Im afraid you're wrong my friend, money corrupts good people. I've seen it happen many times.

Many believe money is the source of all evil, and though i don't believe evil actually exists... i do believe money is a great source of power and corruption.

It causes all negetive human emotions to emerge, greed, hate, envy, selfishness..etc...etc

I realize you're posting this thread to try to make people come to a realization...but you must also realize, money makes the world turn as it is right now. You can't do anything without it, so it ends up being a trap which most people fall into.

If you don't have money you need it... IF you do have money, more problems occur because the more you have the more you pay.

reply to post by Akragon


Dear Akragon,

I will give a slight variation on what you stated. I believe money and power act as amplifiers. If you are not ready for them then you will use them to overindulge in your weakness. I don't believe it corrupts so much as it highlights one's weaknesses. It provides more opportunities, we don't have to give into them. There was a time I had a bit of both and I did not use them for my own wants.

I know people who still have both, some overindulge and some do not. I cannot say that everyone with money or power misuse theirs. I can honestly agree with one statement, having lost everything is the best thing that ever happened to me. I love a much simpler life and always did, I did not seek out what I had, it just sort of happened over the years. A Pastor once said something I really liked, he said most people spent money they did not have, to buy things they did not need, to impress people they did not like. The quote may not be exact; but, it is close enough. Be well.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Strictly speaking, the idea of the separation of church and state, regardless of the courts interpenetration, does not exist in the bill of rights or the constitution. today its as if the wording has been reversed, that the people cannot chose to express what they may wish to believe and that the government must persecute them for it. Take for example the idea of a valedictorian praising their faith in Jesus and being attacked for it by not just the schools but by groups that espouse "protecting your rights". At no point is the government indoctrination camps "i.e. public schools" endorsing this view but are in fact violating the free excise there of.

And no, I don't believe

p.s. thanks for the link, i'll check out the book

edit on 30-5-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)

Dear NuroSlam,

Funny thing is I am a Christian and vehemently opposed to it being taught in the schools. I don't believe government SHOULD promote religion. Not promote it, tolerate it, it should allow us to exercise it and free speech means being allowed to say what I believe even at a school. I don't bring up my beliefs in the real world unless asked. Some people are even shocked when they discover that I am a devout believer.

We have silly restrictions on religious freedom and it is going to get much worse. In Europe we are seeing bans on Muslims wearing their traditional clothing, that is wrong. In the United States we are seeing people deny the fact that Declaration of Independence says, "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." Belief in a creator was fundamental to the founding of the republic not contrary to it. I should also point out that I refuse to say the pledge of allegiance or swear on a bible. It is silly for the courts to ask people to swear on the bible while handing down decisions that there can be no talk of God in schools.