Desperation of Church and State

BadEagle.com ^ | 7-25-03 | David A. Yeagley

[Alberta's Child]

This article raises some very good points, but I suspect the term "separation of church and state" is going to be accepted by conservatives as God's truth the first time a municipal or state government decides to celebrate Islamic holidays in the school system.

[risk]

>>>> The founding fathers of the United States of America certainly had no concept of the “separation of church and state.”

This is nonsense. The Pilgrims came to America to escape a state-mandated religion. The Gunpowder plot before that was triggered by revilement of the same theocracy, and is often cited as a vehicle that carried Anglos out to the colonies and planted seeds of the American revolution. Furthermore, our founding fathers knew of the dangers of statist religion.

Separation of church and state are as American as apple pie. What isn't is restricted freedom of practice and expression of religious beliefs.

[DPB101]

The Pilgrims came to America to escape a state-mandated religion.

Massachusetts had taxpayer funded churches until the mid 1830s. Daniel Webster argued against an attempt to change the state constitution to prohibit the practice in the early 1820s.

[anniegetyourgun]

Just what would the God-haters of our society have us to do about such displays on government property? I see them coming to smash the headstones of Arlington now.....

[DPB101]

The article greatly distorts the history of which groups have, since WWII, led the charge to censor religious speech.

The facts are here.

[saint]

It’s only the Jews who will frequently go to bat for someone else’s religious rights.

(choke)

[DPB101]

I see them coming to smash the headstones of Arlington now.....

Only a matter of time. A WWI veteran's memorial is under attack in California:

Alternate suggested for Mojave Cross (take down your Christian cross and put up what I want)

[James R. McClure Jr.]

Peace Bad Eagle,

Catholic BTTT!

James R. McClure Jr.
Sir Knight of Columbus

[DPB101]

(choke)

LOL!...the writer never heard of Leo Pfeffer or Emel'ian Yaroslavskii, has he?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is nonsense. The Pilgrims came to America to escape a state-mandated religion.

Why do you suppose the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . ."? It's not because they considered "Congress" synonymous with "government"--for surely you know that Robert E. Lee suffered no such confusion even "fourscore and seven" years later.

It is only post-Civil War that the First Amendment is applied to the states. The Second Amendment, inconsistently, is not applied to the states, even yet. Just think what it would mean to our understanding of the First Amendment if the jurisprudence of the Second Amendment were applied to it! That would give you a much better idea of what the First Amendment actually did mean, in the founding era.

[lizma]

this declaration was meant to protect Catholics from persecution under governments which repressed religion

Maybe so but it's no longer working. A practicing Catholic can no longer be approved federal judge in this country.

We're up against the "religion is the opiate of the masses" crowd. They would prefer to see our rights not come from God but from them. They have twisted "religous freedom" to mean freedom from religion.

They are trying to eliminate the competetion and I think they are winning.

[risk]

>>>> Massachusetts had taxpayer funded churches until the mid 1830s.

And the colony of Rhode Island was launched in part to escape the oppressive nature of the Puritans. The first settlers wanted to impose their own brand of religion on people who came over, and in so doing, replicated a different form of tyranny in New England.

This argument is as old as our country, and keeping church and state separate is the right way. If the founding fathers disagreed about how the state should remain neutral toward religion, some erred on the side of diversity. Franklin wanted to support and encourage all religions, including Islam. In any case, not everyone agreed with John Adams' devotion, and although Jefferson changed his mind as he got older, I doubt he had anything but separation of church and state in mind at any point of his life.

What's wrong with contemporary interpretations of values on separating church and state is secularism to the exclusion of individual freedom of practice and expression. But just because our society has gone too far with separation to exclusion doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea in the beginning. Exclusion is the real problem that is vexing the right, and we should focus on it, not on "bringing Christ back to the helm of our state."

[risk]

>>>> Why do you suppose the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . ."?

Interesting point that the states and the federal government have differing powers in this respect.

[DPB101]

And the colony of Rhode Island was launched in part to escape the oppressive nature of the Puritans.

Interestingly enough, Rhode Island was mentioned when the founders were trying to phrase the first amendment in such a way that "establishment" would never be construed to censor religious expression (as you and liberal judges now do).

Annals of Congress. August 15, 1789

Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words (of the first amendment) might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understoon the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia: but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it. The ministers of their congregations in the Eastward were maintained by the contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by by-laws. If an action was brought before a Federal Court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, or bulding of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishement.

By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, thereffore , the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.

Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establsh a religion to which they would comple others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

You want to separate church and state? Fine with me. Repeal the first amendment. Pass laws censoring religious expression. Throw people in jail for violating your laws if you wish. Excute the faithful as they did in the Soviet Union if that is your desire. But do it honestly. Do it democratically. Don't pretend the first amendment says what it doesn't. Don't play Orwellian mind-rot games on the American public. Stand up for your beliefs and put them before the citizens of this country for a vote.

[LiteKeeper]

I suspect the term "separation of church and state" is going to be accepted by conservatives as God's truth the first time a municipal or state government decides to celebrate Islamic holidays in the school system.

Honest conservatives with recognize that freedom of religion is for every citizen of these United States. Will it upset me? Sure. Can I refuse them? Certainly not, or I can't lay any claim to a belief in religious freedom.

[risk]

>>>> (as you and liberal judges now do).

You are wrong about me, but you can keep thinking whatever you like.

[DPB101]

Because you want church and state separated, you are willing to accept judicial fiat law and judicial tyranny. That is not a conservative position. It is not a principled position either. It is a quintessential liberal position: the constitution is a "living document" and means whatever we the hell we want it to mean--almost two centuries of legal precedent, more than three centuries of colonial and American tradition as well as the intent of the founders be damned.

[risk]

I disagree. The true conservative position is to keep church and state separated as far as possible. You're posing as a conservative.