How to win a "separation of church and state" debate

[raistlinkishtar]

There is no constitutional reason why, at the state or local levels, people should be prevented from completely integrating Christianity into their government.

At the federal level, control of religion isn't something the constitution grants and erroring on the side of less power to the federal level is, historically, a wise thing. If the founders granted congress control of Christianity, no doubt they would seek to destroy it at every opportunity.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Settlers getting away from State-Church setting up State-Church in their new residences. Ironic? Yes, indeed. Who wouldn't want the wonderful world of State and Church once again? All those wonderful things they did for society ::rollseyes::

 

[PaulineDisciple]

If what you mean by separation of church and state is that you cannot let your personal beliefs influence your political positions, then you are deluded since this is impossible. But if what you mean by separation of church and state is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (understood to mean the establishment of any particular Christian denomination at the time and only applied on the federal level, states had established Christian denominations at the time) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, then lets talk about this aspect of our constitution.

Each word is important to understand what would constitute a violation of these clauses.

1st, it must be an act of congress and does not apply to individuals expressing their religion that so happens to be a government official.

2nd, this act must be a law establishing a particular religion (understood as the establishment of a particular Christian denomination at the time) as the official religion that all states must submit to.

3rd, neither can congress pass laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion as long as it didn’t violate the distinctly Christian laws that our country had deemed were based on the general equity of God’s law. Hence it was accepted that the many laws that were distinctly Christian in nature were allowed to stand and many of these kinds of laws are still on the books although they are rarely enforced. Otherwise, a Satan worshipper should be able to freely exercise his belief that he could kidnap people to be used as a human sacrifice for his worship service. I use an extreme example so you can easily get my point.

To turn this around and demand that public officials cannot have the freedom to post the ten commandments somewhere turns the first amendment on its head and should be considered absurd.

I like to use the example that if this applied to each public officials practice, he would have every right to insist that you are vesting him with the power of congress and since congress can declare war, he could unilaterally declare war on you and end the argument right away.

 

[Angel]

I think most people are very familiar with Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause. For those, such as Sharron Angle, to claim that Jefferson was taken out of context, they are either being disingenuous, or they simply have not taken the time to read more than one or two of Jefferson's writings. For example:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all this artificial scaffolding."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823

There should be no doubt as to what side of the argument he fell on. He wouldn't exactly be a fan of Angle.

But let's put Jefferson aside and visit the opinions of the person given most credit to the origination of the First Amendment and The Establishment Clause, James Madison:

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."

James Madison, letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered"

James Madison

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

James Madison, letter to his friend Robert Walsh, circa 1830's

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others."

James Madison, letter to "Reverend Adams, circa 1832

 

[AxisMundi]

There is no constitutional reason why, at the state or local levels, people should be prevented from completely integrating Christianity into their government.

At the federal level, control of religion isn't something the constitution grants and erroring on the side of less power to the federal level is, historically, a wise thing. If the founders granted congress control of Christianity, no doubt they would seek to destroy it at every opportunity.

There is every Constitutional reason why religion has no place in any level of government. It is the first sentence of the First Amendment, as well as Article VI, paragraph 3.

From the earliest American legal dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary...

4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Besides the supremacy of the US Constitution, as found in Articles 9 and Ten, as well as the 14th Amendment, each State has, within it's own constitution, an Establishment Clause as well.

There is also every rational reason to keep religion and government separated. That is simple religious freedom and equality, not only for non-Christians, but for different Christian denominations as well.

 

[AxisMundi]

If what you mean by separation of church and state is that you cannot let your personal beliefs influence your political positions, then you are deluded since this is impossible. But if what you mean by separation of church and state is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (understood to mean the establishment of any particular Christian denomination at the time and only applied on the federal level, states had established Christian denominations at the time) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, then lets talk about this aspect of our constitution.

Each word is important to understand what would constitute a violation of these clauses.

1st, it must be an act of congress and does not apply to individuals expressing their religion that so happens to be a government official.

2nd, this act must be a law establishing a particular religion (understood as the establishment of a particular Christian denomination at the time) as the official religion that all states must submit to.

3rd, neither can congress pass laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion as long as it didn’t violate the distinctly Christian laws that our country had deemed were based on the general equity of God’s law. Hence it was accepted that the many laws that were distinctly Christian in nature were allowed to stand and many of these kinds of laws are still on the books although they are rarely enforced. Otherwise, a Satan worshipper should be able to freely exercise his belief that he could kidnap people to be used as a human sacrifice for his worship service. I use an extreme example so you can easily get my point.

To turn this around and demand that public officials cannot have the freedom to post the ten commandments somewhere turns the first amendment on its head and should be considered absurd.

I like to use the example that if this applied to each public officials practice, he would have every right to insist that you are vesting him with the power of congress and since congress can declare war, he could unilaterally declare war on you and end the argument right away.

Firstly, only Connecticut had an officially established religion after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and that only because they used their Colonial Charter as their Constitution until their first Constitutional Convention in 1813, at which time said establishment was eliminated.

Secondly, you are correct. Our BoR strove to preserve the balance between an individual's religious freedoms and rights while in office, while preserving the secular (ie religiously neutral) nature of our government, at all levels.

However, it was not intended to keep only one denomination of Christianity from gaining power and domination over the government, but all religion as well. From Bouvier's entry for "religion"...

"Real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men."

Lastly, our laws are not based on "Christian principles". This is a blatant lie forwarded by those who support theodemocracy, and by those who thinks it merely "sounds good".

Our common law system was based on English Common Law, a system developed by the pre-Christian Saxons, and, according to Jefferson in a personal letter to a confidant, little effected by Christianity in the few centuries between the development of that religion in England and the founding of our Nation.

 

[romeno182]

is this the ayatollah forum or the liberty forum.. liberty only began after the separation of church and state..before it didnt exist. monotheistic religions are fascist in their nature when will u understand that?