Separation of Church and State?

[k4kyv]

Certain Christians believe that in the right circumstances Jesus Christ would kill and that the infallible Bible gives men the right to create and participate in any project that furthers their agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2KoX5vtZU

[W3MIV]

Certain people believe the world is flat.

Others believe the moon harbors an alien colony on the far side.

Lots of people believe lots of foolish things. Two minutes on this forum should establish that beyond any reasonable doubt.

So what?

[n2ize]

Well, part of the reason this is important is because religion seems to be taking a stronger and stronger foothold in our government and it's decision making processes. This is indeed a matter of concern and diligence, lest we want to end up a theocracy like some are in the middle east.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 21 2007,13:56)]Certain people believe the world is flat.

Others believe the moon harbors an alien colony on the far side.

Lots of people believe lots of foolish things. Two minutes on this forum should establish that beyond any reasonable doubt.

So what?
It was the government that brought down the Trade Center. I read it on the Internet! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 21 2007,18:05)]Well, part of the reason this is important is because religion seems to be taking a stronger and stronger foothold in our government and it's decision making processes. This is indeed a matter of concern and diligence, lest we want to end up a theocracy like some are in the middle east.
It's always been that way - I'm not saying that it is right but religion has been intertwined with our government since its inception. #As long as you have people with religious beliefs elected to office it's going to happen. #So far I think we've done a fair job of keeping them seperate.

Do I think that the two should be mutually exclusive of each other? #Absolutely. #Do I think that will ever happen? #Probably never. #

What we do have to guard against is religion overly influencing government - or vice versa. # #If what I see here daily on QRZ is a sampling of public opinion it ain't gonna happen.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 21 2007,17:15)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 21 2007,13:56)]Certain people believe the world is flat.

Others believe the moon harbors an alien colony on the far side.

Lots of people believe lots of foolish things. Two minutes on this forum should establish that beyond any reasonable doubt.

So what?
It was the government that brought down the Trade Center. #I read it on the Internet! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Does that mean you are blaming Al Gore?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 21 2007,17:05)]Well, part of the reason this is important is because religion seems to be taking a stronger and stronger foothold in our government and it's decision making processes. This is indeed a matter of concern and diligence, lest we want to end up a theocracy like some are in the middle east.
You post is simply not true.

Look to history and you will see that the exact opposite is true. FDR openly prayed on his Fireside Chats, asking his audience to join him. Past luminaries such as Lincoln, Adams I and Washington used appeals to God and religion as ordinary tools of governance. Even Bill Clinton paid lip service to religion, all the more so at times when such an appeal would put him in a better light. We are very far from any worry about any kind of theocracy.

And what in hell do you mean by "matter of concern and diligence?" The phrase makes no sense.

[K3XR]

The Constitution guarantees you freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 21 2007,15:40)]The Constitution guarantees you freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
The only requirement of my religion is to be free from religion.

kthx

[k5xit]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 21 2007,15:05)]Well, part of the reason this is important is because religion seems to be taking a stronger and stronger foothold in our government and it's decision making processes. This is indeed a matter of concern and diligence, lest we want to end up a theocracy like some are in the middle east.
There really are boogers under your bed arn't there? #You should really watch out for the Christians. #They know you are posting on this forum. #They may already have a contract on you. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ka0gkt]

The idea of the "Seperation of Church and State" comes from the first amendment to the US constitution which states":


Quote[/b] ]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.



The framers of the constitution were quite familiar with a state religion: The Church of England. America was colonized by people of many religions, Ch. of England (Episcopal), Ch. of Scottland (Presbyterian), The Pennsylvania Deutch were Lutherans and Anabaptists (which became the Amish, Hutterites and others), French Catholics, Unitarians, Methodists, and Baptists were found in the colonies, and many feared that a central government as envisioned in the Federalist Papers would dictate a state religion. Thus the inclusion of the words "]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the first amendment to the constitution; the first in the ten corporately known as "The Bill of Rights".

You will notice that the words "Seperation of Church and State" do not appear in the text of the constitution, in fact Congress is expressly forbidden to prohibit the free excercise of religion, therefore, it is just fine for even the President of the United States to invite people to prayer, even in a public function like a FDR's Fireside Chats, a Presidential address on television, or at the podium on a University Campus.

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 21 2007,18:29)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 21 2007,17:05)]Well, part of the reason this is important is because religion seems to be taking a stronger and stronger foothold in our government and it's decision making processes. This is indeed a matter of concern and diligence, lest we want to end up a theocracy like some are in the middle east.
You post is simply not true.

Look to history and you will see that the exact opposite is true. FDR openly prayed on his Fireside Chats, asking his audience to join him. Past luminaries such as Lincoln, Adams I and Washington used appeals to God and religion as ordinary tools of governance. Even Bill Clinton paid lip service to religion, all the more so at times when such an appeal would put him in a better light. We are very far from any worry about any kind of theocracy.

And what in hell do you mean by "matter of concern and diligence?" The phrase makes no sense.
Positively correct! Check out the biographies of the "Founding Fathers" and see exactly what they thought about the proper place for religion in one's daily lives.

I suspect you will be greatly surprised!

You might want to check out the Bio of Benjamin Franklin on Wikipedia *linkie* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin) for more about arguably the most liberal thinker in the early days of our country.

73, Jim

[W5HTW]

My problem with government and religion is actually pretty simple. I have no objection to people in politics being religious. The problem comes when they tell me that God told them to handle something a certain way.

When a politician says, about any issue at all, "I am going to do as God tells me," or "I am going to pray about it," then I have serious difficulty accepting this. Why? Because I can't hear God telling him/her anything. He then comes back to the stage and says "I have chosen to vote this way." We are to assume God told him to, since that is what he said.

That IS a religion-run government. If he thinks God is telling him how to deal with a particular political issue, then he has already put religion in control of government, at least within his ability to do so.

For example, a Congressional committee might be composed of ten people. Eight of them might be Christians. Those eight might decide to vote "the way God told them to." And the issue becomes law, a law based on a God I can't hear, can't see, can't communicate with, and can't get information from. I have been disenfranchised.

I realize it would be easy for a politician to NOT say he is going to pray about it, and then do so anyway. The end result might be the same. I am not, of course, advocating the opposite of what Pat Robertson said! Pat said, when he was running for President, "No one who isn't a Christian should be allowed to hold public office." That was absolutely the statement of a religious dictator. I would not seek to ban Christians from public office. I do think we need to know, though, that they are considering the issues before them as issues that affect all of us, and not just those of their particular belief. I do not think Divine Guidance has ANY place in politics and government, because it is totally invisible to those of us who don't believe in it. It makes us slaves toan unknown entity.

Ed

[k5xit]

I get so tired of the crazies that keep harping on "seperation of church and state" I have never known at any time the government trying to make any offocial religon. I suppose the Anti Christ crowd just want any reference to God removed from everything. We are seeing the result of a Godless society daily.

[k5xit]

I get so tired of the crazies that keep harping on "seperation of church and state" I have never known at any time the government trying to make any offocial religon. I suppose the Anti Christ crowd just want any reference to God removed from everything. We are seeing the result of a Godless society daily.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ April 21 2007,16:49)]The idea of the "Seperation of Church and State" comes from the first amendment to the US constitution which states":


[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I had no idea that the first amendment was so broadly worded, not being an American.

I note that there is no religion specified, it seems to apply equally to Christians, Muslims and, for that matter, Devil worshipers. I hope it works as well as it sounds.

73

Brian G8ADD

[ka5s]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 22 2007,10:06)]I had no idea that the first amendment was so broadly worded, not being an American.

I note that there is no religion specified, it seems to apply equally to Christians, Muslims and, for that matter, Devil worshipers. I hope it works as well as it sounds.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
--Churchill


Laws are necessary when social institutions either fail to serve the public good, or become harmful in themselves. Without either laws or social institutions, we get the worst humans can do.

Pogroms are illegal here, but not yet unthought of. Leaving out the QRZ trolls, some of us are actually serious about violence against Muslims. Some of us are serious about violence against abortion providers. Some of us are serious about violence against unbelievers of any kind. Some of us are serious about violence against SUV drivers!

And many of those who would not in a million years think to lock their neighbors in concentration camps and march them into gas chambers, still lovingly consign them to an eternity in Hell's own ovens. THAT's legal.


Cortland
KA5S

[k5xit]

I get so tired of the crazies that keep harping on "seperation of church and state" I have never known at any time the government trying to establish state religon. I suppose the Anti Christ crowd just want any reference to God removed from everything. We are seeing the result of a Godless society daily.

[ka5s]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ April 22 2007,10:06)]I had no idea that the first amendment was so broadly worded, not being an American.
BTW...

From little acorns great oaks grow, and thorn bushes take only a handful of seed; in the Bible there is a prohibition against seething a young goat in its mother's milk. From that one prohibition came chapters of commentary and many rules about how to handle milk and meat (even chickens and turkeys are called "meat") in the kitchen and elsewhere.

Same thing with the "no law" provision; broad provisions have a way of turning into narrow laws.

Cortland
KA5S

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (k5xit @ April 22 2007,10:36)]I get so tired of the crazies that keep harping on "seperation of church and state" I have never known at any time the government trying to establish state religon. I suppose the Anti Christ crowd just want any reference to God removed from everything. We are seeing the result of a Godless society daily.
Is three postings of the same text enough? You may wish to add a few more there OM. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[K3XR]

How the LEFT tries to rewrite history, by removing any mention of religion.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55257 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55257)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 21 2007,15:29)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ April 21 2007,17:05)]Well, part of the reason this is important is because religion seems to be taking a stronger and stronger foothold in our government and it's decision making processes. This is indeed a matter of concern and diligence, lest we want to end up a theocracy like some are in the middle east.
You post is simply not true.

Look to history and you will see that the exact opposite is true. FDR openly prayed on his Fireside Chats, asking his audience to join him. Past luminaries such as Lincoln, Adams I and Washington used appeals to God and religion as ordinary tools of governance. Even Bill Clinton paid lip service to religion, all the more so at times when such an appeal would put him in a better light. We are very far from any worry about any kind of theocracy.

And what in hell do you mean by "matter of concern and diligence?" The phrase makes no sense.
Yeah, they also had a prayer moment ever evening on WOR AM radio every evening too.

The problem is that these days a new breed of religious zealot is making strong inroads into government. I am talking about zero tolerance Christian fundimentalists. Our current sitting president seems to like to appease these people very chance he gets.. "Concern and diligence" means that we must remanin concerned about this and take action to prevent our government from becoming a theocrazy run by these zealots.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ April 21 2007,19:49)]The idea of the "Seperation of Church and State" comes from the first amendment to the US constitution which states":


Quote[/b] ]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.



The framers of the constitution were quite familiar with a state religion: The Church of England. #America was colonized by people of many religions, Ch. of England (Episcopal), Ch. of Scottland (Presbyterian), The Pennsylvania Deutch were Lutherans and Anabaptists (which became the Amish, Hutterites and others), French Catholics, Unitarians, Methodists, and Baptists were found in the colonies, and many #feared that a central government as envisioned in the Federalist Papers would dictate a state religion. #Thus the inclusion of the words "]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the first amendment to the constitution; the first in the ten corporately known as "The Bill of Rights".

You will notice that the words "Seperation of Church and State" do not appear in the text of the constitution, in fact Congress is expressly forbidden to prohibit the free excercise of religion, therefore, it is just fine for even the President of the United States to invite people to prayer, even in a public function like a FDR's Fireside Chats, a Presidential address on television, or at the podium on a University Campus.

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve
Finally! #Someone who understands what the First Amendment actually means! #You are very right when it says Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, which means that people can practice religion, or not, as they so choose. #The original framers regarded religion as so important an issue that they made it the very first clause of the Bill of Rights.

It also means that Congress cannot establish a state religion. #There is nothing in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter, that says Congress or the government cannot acknowledge religion or encourage people to pray, meditate, etc. #It just isn't in there. #That idea comes from the corrupt ACLU, which has completely twisted the meaning of the First Amendment and caused the sheeple to believe it.

Those who insist that "separation of church and state" appears anywhere in the Constitution haven't read it.

[k5xit]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ April 22 2007,08:49)]Quote[/b] (k5xit @ April 22 2007,10:36)]I get so tired of the crazies that keep harping on "seperation of church and state" # I have never known at any time the government trying to establish state religon. #I suppose the Anti Christ crowd just want any reference to God removed from everything. #We are seeing the result of a Godless society daily.
Is three postings of the same text enough? #You may wish to add a few more there OM. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Oh yes, I did get it posted didnt I? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif Do you think I got the point across?

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ April 22 2007,09:15)]How the LEFT tries to rewrite history, by removing any mention of religion.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55257 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55257)
Yes, Jamestown was established to spread the gospel, among other things.

And very few years after it was established, my ancestors were kicked out of Jamestown due to religious differences, and became some of the first settlers in Maryland, and some of America's first Methodists.

Even then, long before the American state was born, people differed over religion.

There are many views of the religions of the founding fathers, but most of them were Deists. Many, including Jefferson, publicy disputed the divinity of Christ, while expressing belief in an almighty God. Yet, these men also led a revolution as much against the Church of England as against the country of England.

I am not worried about religious men being in office - I think it's a good idea. But I am concerned about zealots of any kind being in charge. In particular, I was disturbed by the General who placed his priorities as 1. Religion, 2. Family, 3. the U.S.A. . If God tells him to fire the ICBMs, will he?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ April 23 2007,10:51)]There is nothing in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter, that says Congress or the government cannot acknowledge religion or encourage people to pray, meditate, etc. It just isn't in there. That idea comes from the corrupt ACLU, which has completely twisted the meaning of the First Amendment and caused the sheeple to believe it.

The Supreme Court's first ruling in favor of separation, by the way, came in 1825, ninety-five years before the ACLU was founded.
Um, no, the idea that the State's sponsorship of a "state" religion might include even so much as "encouraging people to pray" does not originate with the UCLA. It originates with the founding fathers, and it was Thomas Jefferson who best described the concern that any state favoritism of any religion over another would be the first step down the slipperly slope to a state sponsored religion.

It was the gentleman from VIrginia who first used the term "separation of church and state" and I have never met anyone who believes that the phrase is literally in the constitution, but it is clear from Jefferson's writing that the doctrine of separation was intended by the framers.

The term originated in this sentence from Jefferson's letters:

Quote[/b] ]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 and State. (emphasis mine)

The United States Supreme Court first ruled in favor of the doctrine of separation in 1878, thirty-two years before the ACLU was founded.

[N1LAF]

From N2IZE Quote[/b] ]The problem is that these days a new breed of religious zealot is making strong inroads into government. I am talking about zero tolerance Christian fundimentalists. Our current sitting president seems to like to appease these people very chance he gets.. "Concern and diligence" means that we must remanin concerned about this and take action to prevent our government from becoming a theocrazy run by these zealots.

I am sure the conservatives are concerned about the intolerant humanist left(anyone far left of tree huggers), who wants to banish God and religion from the face of the earth. Are you putting Jimmy Carter in the same category, since he is also a 'Born-again" Christian, loosely associated in belief as those right wing religious types?

When looking at the Bill of Rights, try to place yourself back in time, in context with history, why these particular articles were written. For one thing, they didn't want 'The church of the United States', like the Church of England. And Brian is correct, this means the same freedoms for non-Christians as well as Christians. Remember, the early colonists, pilgrims, were persecuted in England because they didn't believe exactly like the church of England. Therefore, you would expect to see the phrase - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Separation of Church and State as we typically hear it is not constitutional, but a conversation between Jefferson and the Danbury (CT) Baptists, who felt persecuted by the Congregationalists. Here is where the separation of church and state started from in context (Marty, take note).

Quote[/b] ]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. 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.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

We see here that Jefferson repeats the "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," statement in the same letter. So what does this really mean. It means that the Government cannot make law requiring an official state religion, as was the case in England, and the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, based on the persecutions experienced by that same form of government.

Quote[/b] ]The only requirement of my religion is to be free from religion. Which is fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's right.

Quote[/b] ]My problem with government and religion is actually pretty simple. I have no objection to people in politics being religious. The problem comes when they tell me that God told them to handle something a certain way. I hear your concerns, but the reality is they have the right to say that, and you should support that right, not the content.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 23 2007,19:06)]Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ April 23 2007,10:51)]There is nothing in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter, that says Congress or the government cannot acknowledge religion or encourage people to pray, meditate, etc. #It just isn't in there. #That idea comes from the corrupt ACLU, which has completely twisted the meaning of the First Amendment and caused the sheeple to believe it.

The Supreme Court's first ruling in favor of separation, by the way, came in 1825, ninety-five years before the ACLU was founded.
Um, no, the idea that the State's sponsorship of a "state" religion might include even so much as "encouraging people to pray" does not originate with the UCLA. #It originates with the founding fathers, and it was Thomas Jefferson who best described the concern that any state favoritism of any religion over another would be the first step down the slipperly slope to a state sponsored religion.

It was the gentleman from VIrginia who first used the term "separation of church and state" and I have never met anyone who believes that the phrase is literally in the constitution, but it is clear from Jefferson's writing that the doctrine of separation was intended by the framers.

The term originated in this sentence from Jefferson's letters:

Quote[/b] ]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 and State. (emphasis mine)

The United States Supreme Court first ruled in favor of the doctrine of separation in 1878, thirty-two years before the ACLU was founded.
I'm sure you meant ACLU, not UCLA. #And I did say the "encouragement to pray" did NOT originate with ACLU, the "separation of church and state" did.

Broadly interpreting the meaning of the Constitution is a very dangerous game. #Encouragement of religion does not constitute favoritism, unless that favoritism is aimed at a particular religion. #Asking people to pray, meditate, etc., just does NOT constitute favoritism. #People may have various dieties to which they pray, while others may prefer to meditate. #I just don't see how that could be a "slippery slope," as you say, towards a state religion.

Perhaps the concept of "separation" was used early in our history (I will concede your point on the quotation), but because it is not directly addressed by the Constitution, it cannot be construed to be an official policy. #The first clause does not necessitate a wall, as government officials must feel free to practice religion just as much as the common people do. #The only real prohibition is in preventing the State from forcing people to worship a certain religion or establishing an official religion.

I understand your reasoning behind what you say, but I feel I must disagree with you on this point.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ April 24 2007,12:02)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 23 2007,19:06)]
It was the gentleman from VIrginia who first used the term "separation of church and state" and I have never met anyone who believes that the phrase is literally in the constitution, but it is clear from Jefferson's writing that the doctrine of separation was intended by the framers.

The term originated in this sentence from Jefferson's letters:

Quote[/b] ]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 and State. (emphasis mine)

The United States Supreme Court first ruled in favor of the doctrine of separation in 1878, thirty-two years before the ACLU was founded.
I'm sure you meant ACLU, not UCLA. And I did say the "encouragement to pray" did NOT originate with ACLU, the "separation of church and state" did.


Yup. And no, the "separation of church and state" did not originate with the ACLU. It was there all along. The phrase originated with Jefferson.

Quote[/b] ]
Perhaps the concept of "separation" was used early in our history (I will concede your point on the quotation), but because it is not directly addressed by the Constitution, it cannot be construed to be an official policy.

The constitution taken out of the context of its framing means almost nothing. It is the use to which it has been put that matters, and the wall between church and state has been present since the founding of the country.

Quote[/b] ]The first clause does not necessitate a wall, as government officials must feel free to practice religion just as much as the common people do. The only real prohibition is in preventing the State from forcing people to worship a certain religion or establishing an official religion.

You are reading your own interpretation into the meaning of the first amendment. It is a different interpretation than the founding fathers had.

Quote[/b] ]I understand your reasoning behind what you say, but I feel I must disagree with you on this point.

The supreme court on the other hand agrees with me and has since 20 years before there was an ACLU.

The people who wrote the constitution, agree with me.

I'll go with what they think, thanks.[/QUOTE]
-

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 24 2007,10:51)]The Separation of Church and State as we typically hear it is not constitutional, but a conversation between Jefferson and the Danbury (CT) Baptists, who felt persecuted by the Congregationalists. Here is where the separation of church and state started from in context (Marty, take note).

That's the letter in which Jefferson first used the phrase. It's certainly a matter he expanded on in many contexts, always with the intent that the government be completely neutral on religious matters.

As Jefferson wrote in that letter
Quote[/b] ] 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. 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.


Quote[/b] ]
We see here that Jefferson repeats the "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," statement in the same letter. So what does this really mean. It means that the Government cannot make law requiring an official state religion, as was the case in England, and the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, based on the persecutions experienced by that same form of government.

and that the government is to refrain from making statements of opinion with respect ot any religion.

To put this entirely in context, check Here (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm) for the letter Jefferson was responding to.

Jefferson was rejecting precisely the same rhetoric that the religious right uses now about "America's god" and the implication that the United States is in some way a Christian country.

[k5xit]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 24 2007,17:14)]Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 24 2007,10:51)]The Separation of Church and State as we typically hear it is not constitutional, but a conversation between Jefferson and the Danbury (CT) Baptists, who felt persecuted by the Congregationalists. #Here is where the separation of church and state started from in context (Marty, take note).

That's the letter in which Jefferson first used the phrase. It's certainly a matter he expanded on in many contexts, always with the intent that the government be completely neutral on religious matters.

As Jefferson wrote in that letter
Quote[/b] ] 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. 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.


Quote[/b] ]
We see here that Jefferson repeats the "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," statement in the same letter. #So what does this really mean. #It means that the Government cannot make law requiring an official state religion, as was the case in England, and the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, based on the persecutions experienced by that same form of government.

and that the government is to refrain from making statements of opinion with respect ot any religion.

To put this entirely in context, check Here (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm) for the letter Jefferson was responding to.

Jefferson was rejecting precisely the same rhetoric that the religious right uses now about "America's god" and the implication that the United States is in some way a Christian country.
You should study US history. You should go to Washington DC and see what is on the outside of most buildings. What is displayed in many places in Washington and is printed on our currency. It makes no difference what your faith is but the fact remains the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Many people have for years been telling God to "get out" Looks like that is hapening. There are a great number of people that have no principals and few morals and want even less. They are the ones that are always complaining about "seperation of church and state". lMore of the PC touchy - feeley crowd. Rather than make "no law" respecting and establishment of religon it apears that you do in fact want a law banning reference to religion. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K5KSB]

k5xit, I agree with you completely. The left in this country have asked that GOD be removed from everything. As we can see by the state of the country, "GOD" has done just that.

[n2ize]

And the ones who think that they have "God" and all the "values" and "morals" seems to be the ones who want lots of war and killing and want to insert themselves into everyones personal life inckuding the bedroom.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (k5xit @ April 25 2007,07:44)]You should study US history. You should go to Washington DC and see what is on the outside of most buildings. What is displayed in many places in Washington and is printed on our currency. It makes no difference what your faith is but the fact remains the United States was founded as a Christian nation.

I have studied US history. This is why I can cite Jefferson and point out that the founders did not found a "Christian" nation.

I have been to DC and do have currency here. Didn't see the word "Christ" anywhere but Christian churches.

I'm also amused that your "fact" is in complete disagreement with the words of the founders and that you haven't offered anything to support the claim.

Quote[/b] ] Many people have for years been telling God to "get out" Looks like that is hapening.

You do realize that "god" didn't mean the same thing to Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison, among others, as it does to you, right?

Quote[/b] ]There are a great number of people that have no principals and few morals and want even less.

Yes. They're called "televangelists".

Quote[/b] ]They are the ones that are always complaining about "seperation of church and state". lMore of the PC touchy - feeley crowd. Rather than make "no law" respecting and establishment of religon it apears that you do in fact want a law banning reference to religion.

I merely want people to understand that the founding fathers wanted the state completely out of the god business.

This is not a Catholic country.

This is not a Christian country.

This is not a Jewish country.

This is not a Muslim country.

This is, and has always been, a country where the government is supposed to stay completely out of religion, leaving it a private matter for the individual, as Thomas Jefferson wrote.

[w4rot]

Quote[/b] ]This is not a Catholic country.

This is not a Christian country.

This is not a Jewish country.

This is not a Muslim country.



"This land was made for you and me."
Woody Guthrie

Peace to all,NC
rot

[K5KSB]

Probably wont be a country at all in a few generations with the way people appear to be leaning. "LEFT"
It is not worth an argument, people are not born basically good and taught to be bad. They are just not being taught at all anymore therefore they take the easy way out, do what feels right for them and the heck with anyone else. All a Christian can and should do is let people know that Jesus is his GOD and let them know why he feels that way. It is up to the individual to accept or reject that Jesus is GOD. At least if you reject Jesus as being GOD you can be assured that the Christian will not strap on a bomb and kill you for it.

Who said it was wrong to murder, or steal? How did that become law?
Where did the basic laws come from?

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 26 2007,21:49)]Probably wont be a country at all in a few generations with the way people appear to be leaning. #"LEFT"
It is not worth an argument, people are not born basically good and taught to be bad. They are just not being taught at all anymore therefore they take the easy way out, do what feels right for them and the heck with anyone else. #All a Christian can and should do is let people know that Jesus is his GOD and let them know why he feels that way. It is up to the individual to accept or reject that Jesus is GOD. #At least if you reject Jesus as being GOD you can be assured that the Christian will not strap on a bomb and kill you for it.

Who said it was wrong to murder, or steal? #How did that become law?
Where did the basic laws come from?
Like Ted Haggard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard) you mean?

Quote[/b] ]
In November 2006, former male prostitute and masseur Mike Jones alleged that Haggard had paid to engage in homosexual sex with him for three years and had also purchased and used crystal methamphetamine.[27] Jones said he had only recently learned of Haggard's true identity and explained his reasons for coming forward by saying, "It made me angry that here’s someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex."

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 27 2007,19:49)]Probably wont be a country at all in a few generations with the way people appear to be leaning. "LEFT"

First off, your Jesus was a liberal. He's the god that's all about forgiveness, cheek turning, and being your brother's keeper.

Quote[/b] ]
It is not worth an argument, people are not born basically good and taught to be bad. They are just not being taught at all anymore therefore they take the easy way out, do what feels right for them and the heck with anyone else.


Such people have always existed. There's even a Christian sect, Calvinism, that says that it's supposed to be that way: the "good" are born that way, predestined to heaven, and get heaven on earth.

Quote[/b] ]At least if you reject Jesus as being GOD you can be assured that the Christian will not strap on a bomb and kill you for it.

That's right. The Christian will drop the bomb on you, but not be around when it goes off.

Quote[/b] ]Who said it was wrong to murder, or steal? How did that become law? Where did the basic laws come from?

It came from atheist philosophers, some thousands of years before your god was ever written about. It is the basis of several eastern cultural systems that predate Christianity and may even predate the writing of the Old Testament. One of those cultural systems grew up to be Buddhism, an atheistic religion which derives its morality entirely without reference to a single god. Buddhism is usually described as "one of the world's five great religions." There are Buddhist cultures that predate the Holy Roman Empire by a thousand years and never once committed an act of violence in the name of a god.

It is surprisingly easy to work out a code of ethics from first principles without once ever having to invoke fear of punishment, promise of reward, or mythical beings.

Not as easy as it is to twist a pacifist religion like Christianity into a Holy Roman Empire, the inquisitions, witch burning, and wretched rhetoric that passes for "religion" on the right in this country, but easy.

And I prefer being good because it's the right thing to do over being good because some "god" demanded it.

[K5KSB]

Quote[/b] ]And I prefer being good because it's the right thing to do over being good because some "god" demanded it.

It appears you have made your choice. So what you are saying is if someone else makes the choice to be bad then that is ok too. They can easily justify it just as you have justified your view.

[K5KSB]

Quote[/b] ]First off, your Jesus was a liberal. He's the god that's all about forgiveness, cheek turning, and being your brother's keeper.

With the Liberal viewpoint there are no moral absolutes, Jesus gave some so if you want to use Him as an example take it all not just a little, you must be hot or cold not lukewarm. I think you know what happens if you are lukewarm.

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 27 2007,21:10)]Quote[/b] ]First off, your Jesus was a liberal. He's the god that's all about forgiveness, cheek turning, and being your brother's keeper.

With the Liberal viewpoint there are no moral absolutes, Jesus gave some so if you want to use Him as an example take it all not just a little, you must be hot or cold not lukewarm. #I think you know what happens if you are lukewarm.
Nothing.

When you're dead, you're dead.

QED.

Dave NX6D
Tulelake, CA

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 27 2007,19:49)]
Quote[/b] ]At least if you reject Jesus as being GOD you can be assured that the Christian will not strap on a bomb and kill you for it.


Unless the "Christian" is Eric Rudolph, or some of those other nitwits that bomb abortion clinics...

Sorry, I can't buy the "Christians are morally superior" argument. You guys have your version of jihadists. To brand the entire Muslim faith as being occupied by terrorists and suicide bombers is not only factually incorrect, but stupid.

Dave NX6D
Tulelake, CA

[K5KSB]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, I can't buy the "Christians are morally superior" argument. You guys have your version of jihadists. To brand the entire Muslim faith as being occupied by terrorists and suicide bombers is not only factually incorrect, but stupid.

Read their Koran. You said Christians were morally superior I didn't. You have no morals therefore you must be right in your statement as it is evident you are not a Christian.

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 27 2007,22:11)]Quote[/b] ]Sorry, I can't buy the "Christians are morally superior" argument. You guys have your version of jihadists. To brand the entire Muslim faith as being occupied by terrorists and suicide bombers is not only factually incorrect, but stupid.

Read their Koran. #You said Christians were morally superior I didn't. #You have no morals therefore you must be right in your statement as it is evident you are not a Christian.
Nice try, Mr. "I Feel Good", but your comments don't fly.

The constant references to "suicide bombers" and 9/11 as applied to Muslims clearly indicate that you and people that think like you are morally superior.

Ok, so were do you get off saying "(I) have no morals"? Because I don't read your ancient history book? You are correct, I am not a Christian, I don't believe in any religion.

You're pretty hostile for someone that alleges to follow the man of peace.

Dave NX6D
Tulelake, CA

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 27 2007,21:02)]Quote[/b] ]And I prefer being good because it's the right thing to do over being good because some "god" demanded it.

It appears you have made your choice. So what you are saying is if someone else makes the choice to be bad then that is ok too. They can easily justify it just as you have justified your view.
No I'm not saying that at all.

Please don't make up strawmen. You make baby Jesus cry when you do that.

There's no justifying "being bad" in Buddhism, for example.

Nor is there any in my ethics and morality.

By the way, of all the gods humans have believed in, why'd you happen to pick Jesus and not Krishna? How come you're Christian and not Muslim?

Accident of birth, that's why.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 27 2007,21:10)]Quote[/b] ]First off, your Jesus was a liberal. He's the god that's all about forgiveness, cheek turning, and being your brother's keeper.

With the Liberal viewpoint there are no moral absolutes, Jesus gave some so if you want to use Him as an example take it all not just a little, you must be hot or cold not lukewarm. I think you know what happens if you are lukewarm.
You've confused "liberal" with "moral relativism". They're not the same thing.

Jesus, by the way, gave only one commandment and it's not an "absolulte". You're confusing the new and old testaments.

Jesus was a liberal. He forgave sinners, shared wealth, favored the separation of church and state, nullified traditional authority and so forth.

Speaking of lacking of absolutes, it was, after all, Jesus, who said "what is truth?"

[K5KSB]

I hope you do have some moral absolutes, but you talk as though it can be different for anyone. Can it be morally right to think it is wrong to murder someone
"Christians" and also morally right to think it is ok to murder someone "Muslims".
The Koran says for them to murder Christians and Jews and if one of their own is killed in the process then they can be forgiven if they make payment to the family.
You have made your choice for now, I really don't intend to come off as a hostile guy. It is nice to know we live in a free country "for now" and we are free to express our opinions and to pray if we want to to whomever we want to.
I promise I will pray for you just as I pray for my family and friends and leaders.

[n7zsd]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ April 23 2007,11:51)]Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ April 21 2007,19:49)]The idea of the "Seperation of Church and State" comes from the first amendment to the US constitution which states":


Quote[/b] ]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.



The framers of the constitution were quite familiar with a state religion: The Church of England. #America was colonized by people of many religions, Ch. of England (Episcopal), Ch. of Scottland (Presbyterian), The Pennsylvania Deutch were Lutherans and Anabaptists (which became the Amish, Hutterites and others), French Catholics, Unitarians, Methodists, and Baptists were found in the colonies, and many #feared that a central government as envisioned in the Federalist Papers would dictate a state religion. #Thus the inclusion of the words "]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the first amendment to the constitution; the first in the ten corporately known as "The Bill of Rights".

You will notice that the words "Seperation of Church and State" do not appear in the text of the constitution, in fact Congress is expressly forbidden to prohibit the free excercise of religion, therefore, it is just fine for even the President of the United States to invite people to prayer, even in a public function like a FDR's Fireside Chats, a Presidential address on television, or at the podium on a University Campus.

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve
Finally! #Someone who understands what the First Amendment actually means! #You are very right when it says Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, which means that people can practice religion, or not, as they so choose. #The original framers regarded religion as so important an issue that they made it the very first clause of the Bill of Rights.

It also means that Congress cannot establish a state religion. #There is nothing in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter, that says Congress or the government cannot acknowledge religion or encourage people to pray, meditate, etc. #It just isn't in there. #That idea comes from the corrupt ACLU, which has completely twisted the meaning of the First Amendment and caused the sheeple to believe it.

Those who insist that "separation of church and state" appears anywhere in the Constitution haven't read it.
I couldn't agree more...been telling people this for years. #And even then, Thomas Jefferson said "Separation of church and state" NOT "Separation of God and state". #Some people even want to twist that one as well. #Many times I've heard the argument about wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from our money, or the word God from the Pledge. #If you don't like it, you don't have to recite the Pledge of Allegience. #Or you can leave that awful word out if you so desire. #I am not going to force it down your throat. #Funny how that can't seem to work both ways!

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (n7zsd @ April 27 2007,23:27)]Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ April 23 2007,11:51)]
I couldn't agree more...been telling people this for years. And even then, Thomas Jefferson said "Separation of church and state" NOT "Separation of God and state". Some people even want to twist that one as well. Many times I've heard the argument about wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from our money, or the word God from the Pledge. If you don't like it, you don't have to recite the Pledge of Allegience. Or you can leave that awful word out if you so desire. I am not going to force it down your throat. Funny how that can't seem to work both ways!
In which god do you trust. There are thousands of them, all alike.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 27 2007,23:07)]I hope you do have some moral absolutes
I wonder if you do.

Is killing always wrong?

Is the death penalty not murder?

It is easy for people to claim they believe in moral absolutes, but it's sure hard to pin them down to one they actually believe.

[K5KSB]

It is wrong to commit murder, it is not always wrong to kill. The Bible condones capital punishment, it also condems murder. There is a difference.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 28 2007,00:27)]It is wrong to commit murder, it is not always wrong to kill. The Bible condones capital punishment, it also condems murder. There is a difference.
The commandment is not "thou shalt not murder" it is "thou shalt not kill".

What you're suggesting is a form of relativistic ethics called situational ethics. The rules only apply in certain situations.

So now we know that murder's OK, I'll make the next one easier. You pick something out of your personal ethics that you think is an absolute and we can discuss it.

By the way, "the bible" you're referring to is the Old Testament. Paul told you that Jesus set the Old Testament aside. You're not to be guided by it any more, if you're a Christian, only by the New Testament.

Jesus only gave you one commandment, not 10, and it's not a particularly complete set of ethics, and it's not an absolute.

[K5KSB]

No, you are wrong, He came to fulfill the Old Testament not do away with it. By the way, the Ten Commandments actually say murder, it was translated and the word kill was used.

[K5KSB]

Are you ablosutely sure there is no God? How can you be sure? I believe through faith that there is, you may have faith that there is not, but you can't prove it absolutely. I try to live as the Bible instructs but I am sure not perfect as no one is. I don't claim to be any better than anyone else. ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 28 2007,03:42)]By the way, "the bible" you're referring to is the Old Testament. Paul told you that Jesus set the Old Testament aside. You're not to be guided by it any more, if you're a Christian, only by the New Testament.
Think you might want to re-read your Paul.

[N1LAF]

Marty, let me help you see the real meaning of Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists from Connecticut, that the letter from Jefferson and his comment of the 'wall' has been badly misinterpreted.

Quote[/b] ]Second, a good deal of Jefferson's correspondence with religious groups during his presidency is extant, and nowhere in this correspondence do we find Jefferson addressing rumors of a national religious establishment. If a national establishment was the context of the Danbury letter, the Danbury Baptists were, so far as we can tell, alone in that concern. (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg12.htm)

Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists was one in agreement with them. This was not about national issues, it was one local to Connecticut, and agreeing with the Baptists about rights.

This is a good summary from the same link
Quote[/b] ]In summary, there is no evidence that the context of the Danbury letter was a rumor of a national establishment. On the contrary, the concern of the Danbury Baptists was religious oppression in the state of Connecticut. Jefferson used the letter as an opportunity to express his own views that the First Amendment created a "wall of separation between church and state." This was no mere assurance that Congress could not establish a national religion. It was a response to the very thesis of the Baptists' letter: that religious rights are by nature inalienable. The Baptists wanted that view to prevail in Connecticut. Jefferson's metaphor assured them that this was already true on the national level, and that the federal government had no right to legislate on religious matters in any way. (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg12.htm)

As my (liberal) college history professor, whom I had the priviledge to have on several classes, as my minor concentration was early American history, would say to put yourself into the context of the time in history. I do so every time, without (trying) to introduce bias or agenda.

Hope this will help.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 28 2007,05:17)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 28 2007,03:42)]By the way, "the bible" you're referring to is the Old Testament. Paul told you that Jesus set the Old Testament aside. You're not to be guided by it any more, if you're a Christian, only by the New Testament.
Think you might want to re-read your Paul.
Paul ?? Paul who ? Paul Wolfowitz ? Mrs. Paul ? Which Paul ?

[n2ize]

Separation of Church and State ? Simple. Practice your religion all you want. Pray and worship whatever. Just don;t shove any religion down anyones throat. When you make religion a part of state you're shoving it down peoples throats.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 28 2007,00:53)]No, you are wrong, He came to fulfill the Old Testament not do away with it.

Then you still follow the dietary laws?

Quote[/b] ]By the way, the Ten Commandments actually say murder, it was translated and the word kill was used.

In Hebrew the commandment is "לא תרצח" There is much disagreement among biblical experts on how to translate the sentence. I can't even read Hebrew and have no opinion. Can you?

This adds another question to the list: When even the experts disagree on how to translate the Hebrew, how do you know which to accept?

But the important question is "what does murder mean"? Among those who translate the commandment that way, there is no agreement as to what constitutes murder, except that state sanctioned killing is acceptable.

If you say that the commandment is "thou shalt not kill", then you have an absolute, but you do not, you say "murder" and now are in the position of using situational ethics to decide which killing is murder and which is not.

So, what moral absolute do you believe in?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 28 2007,01:00)]Are you ablosutely sure there is no God? How can you be sure? I believe through faith that there is, you may have faith that there is not, but you can't prove it absolutely. I try to live as the Bible instructs but I am sure not perfect as no one is. I don't claim to be any better than anyone else. ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I am not absolutely sure of any absolute.

Although I am absolutely sure that none of the 'gods' proposed by men, including yours, exists.

There may be a god, but if there is, it's more likely to be Spinoza's god than yours.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 28 2007,05:19)]Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists was one in agreement with them. This was not about national issues, it was one local to Connecticut, and agreeing with the Baptists about rights.

The Baptists wrote about a local issue. Jefferson replied in a national context.

Quote[/b] ]
As my (liberal) college history professor, whom I had the priviledge to have on several classes, as my minor concentration was early American history, would say to put yourself into the context of the time in history. I do so every time, without (trying) to introduce bias or agenda.

Hope this will help.

You've confused "narrowing of focus" with "establishing context."

Let's put this letter in the context of Jefferson's record on the issue. You'll recall, I'm sure, something he was involved in in Virginia earlier that sets the tone for both the constitutional sentence and the reply to the Baptists.

Jefferson, by the way, did not use "wall". That was justice Black, many decades later. But his actions in Virginia establish the context for his remark on separation and it is clear that he intended the separation to be complete.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] ]Separation of Church and State ? Simple. Practice your religion all you want. Pray and worship whatever. Just don;t shove any religion down anyones throat. When you make religion a part of state you're shoving it down peoples throats.
Agreed. Also no religious litmus tests on groups that may want to use public property like any other organization. Government may recognize, but not establish, not require but not prohibit the free exercise.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 28 2007,04:42)]Jesus only gave you one commandment, not 10, and it's not a particularly complete set of ethics, and it's not an absolute.
Um, no. He gave us TWO commandments. The first was to love the Lord your God with all your mind, soul, might, etc., and the second was to love your neighbor as yourself.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ April 28 2007,09:42)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 28 2007,04:42)]Jesus only gave you one commandment, not 10, and it's not a particularly complete set of ethics, and it's not an absolute.
Um, no. He gave us TWO commandments. The first was to love the Lord your God with all your mind, soul, might, etc., and the second was to love your neighbor as yourself.
Ah, someone is paying attention.

And where's the absolute set of ethics in those two commandments?

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] ]The Baptists wrote about a local issue. Jefferson replied in a national context.

Jefferson replied to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that their concerns have already been addressed at the national level. Why would Jefferson reply any other way. Its not like this letter was going to be posted on some webpage for a national forum. Revolution ideals took time, they were not instant.

This was a letter, not constitutional law.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 28 2007,10:02)]Quote[/b] ]The Baptists wrote about a local issue. Jefferson replied in a national context.

Jefferson replied to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that their concerns have already been addressed at the national level. Why would Jefferson reply any other way. Its not like this letter was going to be posted on some webpage for a national forum. Revolution ideals took time, they were not instant.

This was a letter, not constitutional law.
Constitutional law is made by understanding framer's intent. The letter, as the DA would say, goes to intent your honor.

But it was only introduced into this thread as a way of reminding us that the phrase "separation of church and state" originated with the framers, and is not a later day invention.

[N1LAF]

I did not get that definition of 'intent' from that letter. Also, what about the other framers 'intent', do they count also? It is still being contested because of this disagreement of 'intent'. Fact, written record is stronger than 'intent' interpretation.

Let me pose this question. Some say that prayer in public grounds is unconstitutional because of this separation church/state, but isn't prayer also a protected form of free speech? Which takes presidence over the other? Doesn't free speech come first, that being more important? Something to think over.

Next question, what was the 'intent' of the Bill of Rights? Why was this so important to be included in the Constitution? The basis?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 28 2007,10:37)]I did not get that definition of 'intent' from that letter. Also, what about the other framers 'intent', do they count also? It is still being contested because of this disagreement of 'intent'. Fact, written record is stronger than 'intent' interpretation.

The written record includes the Virginia events leading up to the constitution and James Madison's strong writings on separation as well. What it does not include is any strong argument that the state should participate in any way in religious matters.

Quote[/b] ]Let me pose this question. Some say that prayer in public grounds is unconstitutional because of this separation church/state, but isn't prayer also a protected form of free speech? Which takes presidence over the other? Doesn't free speech come first, that being more important? Something to think over.

That's not a simple question. If public ground is available for common use, as, say, the Boston Commons is, then private groups wishing to pray there should be allowed, following the exact rules that govern any private use of public space. However, if the government uses public grounds for prayer that's outside the pale, because it violates the first amendment.

Quote[/b] ]Next question, what was the 'intent' of the Bill of Rights? Why was this so important to be included in the Constitution? The basis?

There's an interesting phrase in the declaration of independence, "we hold these truths to be self evident", emphasis mine, which goes towards that question. The reasoning dates back to poor William of Ockham, and perhaps even Dun Scotus, and is a rejection of "divine rights".

The founding principles of the United States rely on the realization that humans have rights merely because they are human and that religion and the state come second to those rights.

It is a pragmatic formulation of the social contract.

The founders' understanding was imperfect, as ours remains today, but their brilliance was in leading social institutions away from the tyranny of mythology towards principles of human rights based on human aspirations. This is what the bill of rights enshrined.

The imperfection lay in not understanding that 'all men' meant more than just white male property holders, it meant all human beings, and in not adequately enshrining the responsibilities that the rights entail.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] ]The written record includes the Virginia events leading up to the constitution and James Madison's strong writings on separation as well. What it does not include is any strong argument that the state should participate in any way in religious matters.
What is important is that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; That congress shall not establish a national religion or church, like the Church of England, nor will the government be hostile to religious institutions and practices. Thats what the Danbury letter was about. Have you read the Declaration of Independence lately? What does the Declaration of Independence look like to you?

Quote[/b] ]That's not a simple question. If public ground is available for common use, as, say, the Boston Commons is, then private groups wishing to pray there should be allowed, following the exact rules that govern any private use of public space. However, if the government uses public grounds for prayer that's outside the pale, because it violates the first amendment.
Good - Agreed. Religious organizations has same rights for use on public property, same rules, as non-religious organizations. Discriminations against religious groups are still occurring. Example of Government based discrimination in New York (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54922)

What about the invocation of prayers in the Senate and Senate, are they in violations?

Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]
Next question, what was the 'intent' of the Bill of Rights? Why was this so important to be included in the Constitution? The basis?


There's an interesting phrase in the declaration of independence, "we hold these truths to be self evident", emphasis mine, which goes towards that question. The reasoning dates back to poor William of Ockham, and perhaps even Dun Scotus, and is a rejection of "divine rights".

The founding principles of the United States rely on the realization that humans have rights merely because they are human and that religion and the state come second to those rights.

It is a pragmatic formulation of the social contract.

The founders' understanding was imperfect, as ours remains today, but their brilliance was in leading social institutions away from the tyranny of mythology towards principles of human rights based on human aspirations. This is what the bill of rights enshrined.

The imperfection lay in not understanding that 'all men' meant more than just white male property holders, it meant all human beings, and in not adequately enshrining the responsibilities that the rights entail.
As my history professor stated, the Bill of Rights was a reflection of the ten biggest 'sins' of the British against the colonists. Knowing this, go back to the Declaration of Independence and see if you can find common references between the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Its all related.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 28 2007,16:54)]Have you read the Declaration of Independence lately? What does the Declaration of Independence look like to you?

It looks like an attempt to justify a revolution.

Quote[/b] ]
What about the invocation of prayers in the Senate and Senate, are they in violations?

Yes, but they qualify as "mostly harmless". Exemption of some "religious" organization from various taxes while denying the exemption to others, the prevalence of the word "god" when one of the world's major religions is atheistic, denying some rituals are religious while maintaining that others are when both have a religious origin; these are the places where the government oversteps the separation.

Quote[/b] ]
As my history professor stated, the Bill of Rights was a reflection of the ten biggest 'sins' of the British against the colonists.


Your history professor had a very shallow understanding of the bill, then. The framers were responding to the wrongs of more than just the British government and were operating in the context of European civil and religious persecution.

While the wording was inspired by the English Bill of rights, the nature of the document was as much inspired by French humanist philosophy as by the British government's behavior.

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] ]Your history professor had a very shallow understanding of the bill, then. You do not have enough information to make that kind of assessment / judgment. I assure you, he has a thorough understanding. It is similar to the English Bill of Rights, both situations has similarities and are probably related. I didn't know about the English Bill of Rights, back then, we didn't have the internet to do quick research either.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but they qualify as "mostly harmless" Either it is a violation or not. 'Harmless' value has no bearing.

I do not agree to some of your statements or interpretations, but it has been an interesting dialog, and I learned something new, the English Bill of Rights.

[K5KSB]

Quote[/b] ]I am not absolutely sure of any absolute.

Although I am absolutely sure that none of the 'gods' proposed by men, including yours, exists.

Your contradicting yourself as most liberals do.
I have enjoyed the chat but it is pointless to continue.
I am absolutly sure I will not respond any further as you enjoy bashing Christians too much. Have a great life, I am and will.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ April 28 2007,18:38)]Quote[/b] ]Yes, but they qualify as "mostly harmless" Either it is a violation or not. 'Harmless' value has no bearing.
It's a violation and it should stop.

But in the great scheme of things, there are so many ways in which the government deviates from the constitution, it's not one worth spending any energy to fix.

[W2ILP]

I believe NOTHING.

That is because I am an atheist.

You can't blame me for ignorance that seeks guidance from the man-made Bibles of the past, which were obviously written in order to control people so that they would kill themselves and others for no logical reasons.

w2ilp (I Like Peace)

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 28 2007,19:51)]Quote[/b] ]I am not absolutely sure of any absolute.

Although I am absolutely sure that none of the 'gods' proposed by men, including yours, exists.

Your contradicting yourself as most liberals do.
I have enjoyed the chat but it is pointless to continue.
I am absolutly sure I will not respond any further as you enjoy bashing Christians too much. Have a great life, I am and will.
There are no contradictions in the statements you quoted, but if I do contradict myself, let me remind you of this from Walt Whitman

Quote[/b] ]Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)


It's a pity you dodged all of the interesting questions I asked. I was so looking forward to you naming even one absolute moral principle that you believed in.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 28 2007,20:53)]I believe NOTHING.

That is because I am an atheist.

You can't blame me for ignorance that seeks guidance from the man-made Bibles of the past, which were obviously written in order to control people so that they would kill themselves and others for no logical reasons.

w2ilp (I Like Peace)
Not true. You obviously believe in the excluded middle or you wouldn't be concerned about rational reasons for killing.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 27 2007,22:53)]You can't blame me for ignorance that seeks guidance from the man-made Bibles of the past, which were obviously written in order to control people so that they would kill themselves and others for no logical reasons.

w2ilp (I Like Peace)
Ockham's razor hard at work here. Seriously, the elephant in the room is that bibles are tools of control and manipulation.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 28 2007,21:53)]Quote[/b] (K5KSB @ April 28 2007,19:51)]Quote[/b] ]I am not absolutely sure of any absolute.

Although I am absolutely sure that none of the 'gods' proposed by men, including yours, exists.

Your contradicting yourself as most liberals do.
I have enjoyed the chat but it is pointless to continue.
I am absolutly sure I will not respond any further as you enjoy bashing Christians too much. #Have a great life, I am and will.
There are no contradictions in the statements you quoted, but if I do contradict myself, let me remind you of this from Walt Whitman

Quote[/b] ]Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)


It's a pity you dodged all of the interesting questions I asked. I was so looking forward to you naming even one absolute moral principle that you believed in.
Let me leave you with this one of mine. "When in doubt duck out". I think that was practiced here.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ April 28 2007,22:01)]Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ April 27 2007,22:53)]You can't blame me for ignorance that seeks guidance from the man-made Bibles of the past, which were obviously written in order to control people so that they would kill themselves and others for no logical reasons.

w2ilp (I Like Peace)
Ockham's razor hard at work here. Seriously, the elephant in the room is that bibles are tools of control and manipulation.
Okham's razor is all well and good but what I want to know is, did it give Okham a close smooth shave ?

[n7zsd]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 28 2007,00:46)]Quote[/b] (n7zsd @ April 27 2007,23:27)]Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ April 23 2007,11:51)]
I couldn't agree more...been telling people this for years. #And even then, Thomas Jefferson said "Separation of church and state" NOT "Separation of God and state". #Some people even want to twist that one as well. #Many times I've heard the argument about wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from our money, or the word God from the Pledge. #If you don't like it, you don't have to recite the Pledge of Allegience. #Or you can leave that awful word out if you so desire. #I am not going to force it down your throat. #Funny how that can't seem to work both ways!
In which god do you trust. There are thousands of them, all alike.
Marty, I thought you were an athiest! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 28 2007,15:50)]There's an interesting phrase in the declaration of independence, "we hold these truths to be self evident", emphasis mine, which goes towards that question. The reasoning dates back to poor William of Ockham, and perhaps even Dun Scotus, and is a rejection of "divine rights".

The founding principles of the United States rely on the realization that humans have rights merely because they are human and that religion and the state come second to those rights.

It is a pragmatic formulation of the social contract.
That is purely and simply a distortion of the principles of "Natural Law" upon which Jefferson based his "appeal" in the Declaration. Not for the first time, you dug yourself into a hole rather than thought your way out.

Natural Law formed the basis of much of the reasoning used by the "Founding Fathers" in the formulation of the Constitution, and their understanding of Natural Law was in no way detached from the central idea of a "Supreme Being," and their views of religion were not considered by them to be "mythology."

Read Jefferson carefully, Martin, and you will see many, many references to his belief in a Godhead, though he never specifically stated a belief in any codified religion, per se.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 30 2007,04:34)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 28 2007,15:50)]There's an interesting phrase in the declaration of independence, "we hold these truths to be self evident", emphasis mine, which goes towards that question. The reasoning dates back to poor William of Ockham, and perhaps even Dun Scotus, and is a rejection of "divine rights".

The founding principles of the United States rely on the realization that humans have rights merely because they are human and that religion and the state come second to those rights.

It is a pragmatic formulation of the social contract.
That is purely and simply a distortion of the principles of "Natural Law" upon which Jefferson based his "appeal" in the Declaration. Not for the first time, you dug yourself into a hole rather than thought your way out.

Natural Law formed the basis of much of the reasoning used by the "Founding Fathers" in the formulation of the Constitution, and their understanding of Natural Law was in no way detached from the central idea of a "Supreme Being," and their views of religion were not considered by them to be "mythology."

Read Jefferson carefully, Martin, and you will see many, many references to his belief in a Godhead, though he never specifically stated a belief in any codified religion, per se.
Pay attention, Albert. "Natural Law" is the "Spinoza's god" I mentioned earlier, that Einstein believed in, that's not much different from the "god" that Jefferson and the other Deists such as Franklin came to believe in, not the personal god of Judeo-Christian tradition.

I never said Jefferson wasn't a theist. I said he wanted separation of church and state to be complete. By pointing out that the god he believed in wasn't the Christian god, you merely add another reason why he, and many of the other founders, were not founding a Christian nation.

The founders were imperfect, Albert. Jefferson kept slaves, and although he realized that the Christian god was a myth, he had not yet come to realize that all of men's gods are myths.

I have read Jefferson, carefully, Albert, and there's a reason why he never specified a belief in a codified religion. He didn't have such a belief. He was not as vocal as Franklin, but he was no Christian.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ April 30 2007,12:56)]The founders were imperfect, Albert. Jefferson kept slaves, and although he realized that the Christian god was a myth, he had not yet come to realize that all of men's gods are myths.

I have read Jefferson, carefully, Albert, and there's a reason why he never specified a belief in a codified religion. He didn't have such a belief. He was not as vocal as Franklin, but he was no Christian.
We all are imperfect, Martin, the Jesuit education you profess should have taught you that, if nothing else. And I, too, have read Jefferson.

Your analysis of Jefferson goes much farther than did he himself, Martin. You are quite correct in that he did not espouse a "Christian" theology, but neither did he overtly reject it, and to state that he believed God to be a "myth" is to put your ideas in his mind. He never made any such allusions.

As to his goal of separating church and state, it is quite clear that most of the Founding Fathers shared the goal of avoiding any hint of an official, established religion such as they confronted with England, France or Spain. But their goal was never to prevent the free and open practice of religion, in public or in private. The "establishment" clause was written for just that purpose: To prevent "establishment," not to prevent practice.

The Supremes have invented law with regard to the First Amendment, not interpreted it.