Separation of Church and State: The Big Lie

America's Godly Heritage (Video from Wallbuilders)

[MamaTexan]

That seems kind of redundant with stealing.

True, it is theft. However, in fraud, the victim gives the criminal the money and/or item, it's not forcibly taken away. I guess you could call it 'theft lite'. :)

[PhilipFreneau]

>> I assume you're a religious person: Doesn't the thought of state bureaucrats being involved with or in your church scare the bejeesus out of you?

Actually, I fear unelected judges far more than elected bereaucrats.

[Sir Gawain]

Myth: The Founders Established A Wall of Separation Between Church and State

William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth

[antiRepublicrat]

There is a little document called the Mayflower Compact written by the pilgrims in 1620 which states "

It also establishes an oppressive religious theocracy. Your point?

[antiRepublicrat]

These moral laws were already well known by Americans.

These moral laws (except for the laws for religious observance) were already well known by civilization long before the birth of Moses.

[antiRepublicrat]

Separation of Church and State is a new-fangled invention of the atheistic left. Only a fool would believe it.

Have you looked at Europe lately?

[tpaine]

Sir Gawain wrote:
William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth

______________________________________

From Rehnquist's conclusion, at your link:

"The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one.

The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others.

Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects.

As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means."
_________________________________________


Gawain, how can you claim these words above "totally destroy" the 'establishment clause'?

-- Rehnquist admits that neither Fed nor State can assert "a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others."


In other words, they "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"..

That ~is~ a separation of church from state, --- and Rehnquist admits as much.

[Melas]

Uh, that's not what coveting is, not by a long shot.

[William Terrell]

Let me see if I can clarify. Do you think that Roy Moore was prohibited by the 1st amendment from putting a stone monument to the ten commandments in the state judicial building?

[tpaine]

Getting lost again in the swamp of Judge Moores political & religious theories will clarify nothing, imo.

See my 'Rehnquist' post at #67.

The 1st's establishment clause clearly shows the intent to separate church & state.
Rehnquist admits as much.

[William Terrell]

The words of the 1st amendment are crystal clear. The reasoning and purpose behind them when they were written is crystal clear: to avoid the establishment a state religion, such that, since it be a state religion, it has access to the force of the state's police power.

None of the efforts to eradicate the faith our country was founded on target anything resembling that establishment, nor anything that would conceivably lead to it.

That include Moore's case.

You answered my and the other poster's question.

[tpaine]

William Terrell wrote:

You answered my and the other poster's question.

______________________________________


So? -- Do you have a point that counters mine in the Rehnquist post?

Why get lost in a supposed 'clarification' of Moores posiition?

[PhilipFreneau]

It is amazing that so many atheists claim there is a "Separation of Church and State" prohibiting any support whatsoever for religion, when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the most notable being the century and a half that Christianity was encouraged and even taught in public schools. Therefore, it is always wise to ignore the modern-day deceivers and look to the interpretations of those who lived in the days of the Founding Fathers.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of 1833, wrote:

"The real object of the [first] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. . . .

The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;— these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. . . .

Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, . . . did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty."

He added, "... the whole power over the subject matter of religion is left exclusively to the State governments to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions."

And this: "Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. . . "

Thanks, Justice Story, for the truth.

[William Terrell]

Your post is the response to the the post where I discussed the meaning of Rehnquist's statement. The reasoning given for the 1st amendment is no mystery. If Rehnquist meant it in any other way, he is wrong, and the original purpose behind the amendment proves him wrong.

Moore's case is a perfect example of efforts to eliminate religion the country was founded on erased from the public square, using no rational basis founded on the 1st amendment's clear wording, documented reasoning and conditions in the old country it was supposed to remedy when it was conceived. And you agree that was good and proper.

As I said, question answered.

[tpaine]

William Terrell wrote:

Your post is the response to the the post where I discussed the meaning of Rehnquist's statement.

As I said, question answered.

______________________________________


I don't have a clue to what you think your point is, and I'm beginning to doubt you do either. Sober up, and call me in the morning.

[Melas]

The problem is still that covet doesn't mean to take by fraud, grift, artiface, or anything remotely similar. Coveting is the act of wanting, desiring, et al. See synonyms at jealousy and desire, not fraud.

[Navydog]

"... the whole power over the subject matter of religion is left exclusively to the State governments to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions."

Ok.....but the Federal Government, by refuseing to take a stand on an issue, leaves the public to believe that it's legal. All it takes is for 1 state to legalize something. Then they move on to the next state and say "well it's legal over there, why can't we have it here?" Then they use the same precedents, examples and referances as was used in the first state to ultamately force it on another. Usually through the Federal Supreme Court that left it up to the States in the first place. This has happened many times before!

If the states had border patrols it would be differant. All 50 states are governed under the same soverignty of these United States. What becomes legal in one state will eventually become legal in all states!

[William Terrell]

The other poster, Conspiracy Guy, was having trouble understanding your position on religion in public practice. I wanted to help clarify, so I asked you about the quintessential public square case that's happened recently, Roy Moore's flap over the ten commandments.

I can't get you to state what your position on that case is. Was my point really that hard to understand? I'll work on my communication techniques.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Save you breath. He has no position just a babel.

[tpaine]

Conspiracy Guy wrote:

--- quoting the Separation of Church and State --
A quick counter of "Where is that stated?" usually shuts them up.

______________________________________

Separation is not 'stated', as you claim.

--But rational men agree that the establishment clause doesn't need to enumerate such a separation, as long as fed, state, and local officials all obey their oaths to support our Constitutions basic principles.

The 1st's establishment & exercise clause's, as adopted:

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

--- No law "respecting an establishment of religion", means no law respecting ANY of the tenets/dogmas of ANY particular religion.

The whole idea of the restriction on Congress was to 'grandfather in' the existing State supported churches.

The language used was a brilliant political compromise to satisfy the fundamentalists of the day, --- while getting across the point that the 'establishments' of any particular religion were not to be respected by elected officials sworn to uphold our individual liberties. -- A simple principle.
30 -tpaine-

______________________________________


William Terrell wrote:

The other poster, Conspiracy Guy, was having trouble understanding your position on religion in public practice.
I wanted to help clarify, so I asked you about the quintessential public square case that's happened recently, Roy Moore's flap over the ten commandments.

I can't get you to state what your position on that case is. Was my point really that hard to understand?


______________________________________


My position on the establishment clause is clearly stated in #30.

C-guys 'confusion' is feigned, and bringing Moore's flap into the discussion could only have added to that overall BS factor, imo.

Thus, your point was & is hard for me to understand.
Hows does Moores grandstanding behavior add any insight into the establishment clause controversy?
- To me, he was just another clownish official, -- trying to make political hay by defying the oath he swore to uphold our individual liberties, to support our Constitution.