Separation of Church and State

[infamous]

I'd be interested in hearing our members views on this important subject.

 

Do you believe in separation of church and state, and if so, why?

Do you reject separation of church and state, and if so, why?

If you believe in the separation of church and state, do you think America is following this social philosophy or not?

Taking a look at the rest of the civilized world, which countries and governments follow a similiar social philosophy and which do not?

 

The number one question on my mind: Is America slowly abandoning this social philosophy and becoming a country trending toward religious government or not?

 

I am a person of faith but I don't want my government telling me which faith I should be following........................Infy

[Tarantism]

the American law of the seperation of church and state is in grave danger, what with the hanging of the ten commandments in a corthouse in texas to the introduction of intelligent design to biology classes in Kansas. its absurd to think that there are so few people in this country who cannot accept the darwinian evolutionary theory, when moer evidence comes out every year. i think that the seperation of the church and the state is an extremely important law, second in importance to the freedom of speech.

 

this is a good topic, infy...

[InfiniteNow]

I am beginning to recognize more and more parellels between our current sociopolitical setup with that which caused the pilgrams to flee England and head toward this, the New World. I hate (very few things, but strongly on this) that gay marriage and teaching ID in schools has become a bigger issue to our populace than the evironment, economy, war, scientific research, dot dot dot.

 

I would much rather fix this system than flee to a new world, but I do feel that the religious powers are much like locusts to our government.

 

I want a politician to say, "I don't believe in God, but I certainly respect that you do," without it being considering career suicide.

 

I want more people to care again. That's when things will change.

[TheBigDog]

Amendment I

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.

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution. However, this does not stop even well educated people from making the claim that all aspects of religion should be barred from mention or visibility in any government matters. To me this is a highy radical view. The religious beliefs have been part of the fabric of the US since its inception. And as such they done no harm to any individual's rights. With the swell of anti-religion in the US quite the contrary has been happening. Long standing traditions are being redefined as forced religious ceremonies. Yet the recognition of religious holidays and significant events by the government is not in any fashion the same as making laws establishing religion.

 

What is very interesting is that people on both sides of the argument use the same letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut, back in 1801 as evidence for their respective arguments. On the separate side people tend to quote one line from the letter saying...

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.

... and taking that to mean that the government should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

 

But when read in context to the letter he was replying to you find that he was not against being religious, or the governments recognition of religion at all. When the Baptists from Conneticut wrote ...

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor...

... Thomas jefferson was in agreement with them, and was assuring them that the first Amendment did indeed protect them from the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion, which was their concern.

 

In typical activist style that bit of misquoting has been used ever since in an effort to change the meaning of the Constitution rather than amending the Constitution to mean something different.

 

So the political battle rages, and the secularists who preach acceptance and brotherhood and understanding systematically try to remove all religion from society.

 

I am a beliver in Freedom of Religion. And that each of us should be able to determine his own views on the topic. And while our government cannot establish an official religion, there is no restriction upon the recognition of religion, or the recognition of traditions and holidays based upon religious celebrations and holy days. And that they can be called by their traditional names by the government without that being an establishment of religion.

 

To me the whole argument is political posturing of the ugliest kind.

 

Bill

[Tormod]

I live in a country where there is a state (Protestant) church. It's an anachronism, especially in a country that supposedly has freedom of religion. Yet our kids are taught religion in state-run daycare, and in public schools. The worst part is that there is no exemptions - kids can't be taken out of religion class even if they are of a different faith (like Moslems, or Catholics).

 

I support freedom of religion, as much as I support the right not to have a religious faith, and it's a shame to have the government tell us (or rather, tell our kids) what to believe in. In my opinion religious education belongs in the family and should be the responsibility of the parents, not the state.

 

We even pay taxes to the church - whether you're a member of the state church or not. The only way *not* to pay those taxes is to join a different religious group or the national Humanist society (which I have joined simply to avoid having my taxes go to the state church - now that particular tax goes to this society, whether I like it or not).

 

If it were up to me I would rather not be a member of any society just because the government requires me to be. Nobody would accept it if this went for political parties, so I wonder why people accept that it goes for religion.

[Tarantism]

right on infinate! completely agreeed!

 

just because the christian religion has been incorperated into the laws and ideals of the United states Since its conception does not make it correct. politics ought to be completely seprate...it shouldnt even be a topic of debate. like you said infinate...there are more important matters.

[TheBigDog]

right on infinate! completely agreeed!

 

just because the christian religion has been incorperated into the laws and ideals of the United states Since its conception does not make it correct. politics ought to be completely seprate...it shouldnt even be a topic of debate. like you said infinate...there are more important matters.

Tartanism, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

 

Bill

[Cedars]

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

 

What is very interesting is that people on both sides of the argument use the same letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut, back in 1801 as evidence for their respective arguments. On the separate side people tend to quote one line from the letter saying...

 

... and taking that to mean that the government should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

 

But when read in context to the letter he was replying to you find that he was not against being religious, or the governments recognition of religion at all. When the Baptists from Conneticut wrote ...

 

... Thomas jefferson was in agreement with them, and was assuring them that the first Amendment did indeed protect them from the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion, which was their concern.

 

In typical activist style that bit of misquoting has been used ever since in an effort to change the meaning of the Constitution rather than amending the Constitution to mean something different.

 

 

 

Bill

 

 

Just incase people were interested:

 

Heres the entire letter written to Thomas Jefferson

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/baptist.htm

 

And here is his response back to them:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

 

Then here is an unedited copy of what he wrote, edited and deleted in the final copy.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

[Edella]

In January 2001, President Bush announced the establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,and acording to pewforum.org,"...many find the practical implications of this idea troubling. In particular, the public expresses strong concerns about both the influence of government on particular religious organizations and the impact of religious groups on the people they are trying to help. Americans also have concerns about government-funded organizations hiring only those who share their belief."

 

Certainly many religious organizations have a history of helping the less fortunate,and some are quite good at it,but can (should) the government give tax dollars to religious organizations if they discriminate in hiring on religious grounds?

 

It seems any faith-based organization which participates in the program will eventually be forced to comply with federal guidelines,hire those who qualify regardless of religious preferences,and become in essence a secular organization just as ineffectual as federal and state programs,and lose the qualities that made them effective to boot.I'm not a religious person,but I think religious charities can be more effective,and truer to their faith by not accepting government money.Sometimes it is in the best interest of church to separate itself from state IMO.What do you think of the the faith-based initiative?

 

 

...and the secularists who preach acceptance and brotherhood and understanding systematically try to remove all religion from society.

I'm not aware of any secularists or secular organizations trying to remove all religion from society.Can you give an example?

[Tarantism]

Tartanism, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

 

Bill

 

hmm. well, off the top of my head i can only think of an impending law, one that would refuse the right of homosexuals to get marrried. i will do some research though.

[Tarantism]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to reduce substantially the promotion of religion by state governments.

 

"government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

 

i was just going through some documents and i thought this might be helpful to the discussion. wording credit to Wikipedia.

 

also, i didnt want to copy/paste the entire thing, but i suggest that everyone read this as well:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

[TheBigDog]

I think that utilizing private organizations - faith based or otherwise - in essentially the privitization of local humanitarian work is a great idea. They are typically far more efficient that the govenment at making money actually accomplish something. All Bush did was to remove the restrictions against faith based organizations having access to federal assistance for such efforts. They should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other group to make sure that they are using the funds as intended. But federal red tape should not get involved with their hiring practices. You are talking about federal dollars that were already earmarked for that type of use. By letting religious institutions get into the mix it just makes those dollars more effective.

I'm not aware of any secularists or secular organizations trying to remove all religion from society.Can you give an example?

Take Mike newdow. A lawyer and doctor by trade. He brought all the way to the supreme court the petition to remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. He is not a group per se, but his fight was used as a tool for political polarization by the left to characterize anyone who opposed this idea as being "the religious right" - and out to indoctrinate religion into impressionable minds. The amount of rallying behind this guy was freightening. Since then he has moved on to other things. He brought a federal law suite against the government because the presidential oath of office is a pledge to God. He is planning to sue the government to remove "In God we Trust" as the natinoal motto and get it off of all currency. To have "God Bless America" banned at government funded public events public events. There was a time when he would have been widly viewed as a nut out to destroy tradition. Now he is widly viewed a a hero of the reform movement, and opposition to him is charaterized as extremeism.

 

The ACLU is also no friend of religious history and tradition. Take this example of removing plaques from the Grand canyon. And the numerous lawsuits to remove crosses from city and county seals. Who exaclty was the victim of that cross on the Los Angeles seal? Or the plaques at the Grand Canyon? As though the Psalms are forbidden for public consumption because they happen to come from the Bible. This is an insidious and persistant trend. And the trend is toward all of these things falling away because cities don't want to waste money fighting them in court. Then when the precidents have been set the court battles become more difficult and expensive and harder to justify. So more consessions are made. The slippery slope is inclining. Are you ready for the ramifications of where it ends?

 

Bill

[Tarantism]

Tartanism, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

 

Bill

 

a few more that i could name are the presidential funding by religious organizations (who remembers the christian organization saying that their prays got bush elected the second time?), the abortion issue is another good one.

[Edella]

Tartanism, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

 

Bill

Blue laws come to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

[C1ay]

Let me begin here with an apology for such a long post, BigDog just happened to present an opportunity to throw in my 2¢...

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution. However, this does not stop even well educated people from making the claim that all aspects of religion should be barred from mention or visibility in any government matters. To me this is a highy radical view.

Why radical?

The religious beliefs have been part of the fabric of the US since its inception. And as such they done no harm to any individual's rights. With the swell of anti-religion in the US quite the contrary has been happening.

 

Long standing traditions are being redefined as forced religious ceremonies. Yet the recognition of religious holidays and significant events by the government is not in any fashion the same as making laws establishing religion.

But it is a respect or preference for theist belief as opposed to being secular. Use our currency for example. To place the words "In God We Trust" on currency the government is making an official statement that God exists, it is effectively an official endorsement of theism. View thsi in contrast to currency that makes no such statement. Such currency would not endorse or refute any theist belief, it would simply be neutral or secular. Some claim such money would be atheist but it would really need to endorse a disbelief in God to be atheist.

What is very interesting is that people on both sides of the argument use the same letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut, back in 1801 as evidence for their respective arguments. On the separate side people tend to quote one line from the letter saying...

 

... and taking that to mean that the government should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

 

But when read in context to the letter he was replying to you find that he was not against being religious, or the governments recognition of religion at all. When the Baptists from Conneticut wrote ...

 

... Thomas jefferson was in agreement with them, and was assuring them that the first Amendment did indeed protect them from the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion, which was their concern.

IMO, both of these fall short of the truth. To really read what was said in context you must look at the whole picture, both the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association and Jefferson's complete, unedited reply to them. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted."

 

Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. Here are both letters in their entirety:

The Danbury Baptist's letter

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

 

Sir,

 

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express ou great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

 

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

 

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

 

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

 

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge

Ephraim Robbins

Stephen S. Nelson

Jefferson's Reply

Mr. President

 

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

 

Gentlemen

 

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & 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 & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & 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, and 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 and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

 

(signed) Thomas Jefferson

Jan.1.1802.

Note Jefferson's reasoning here in brackets. It was his opinion that the Executive branch could only perform acts that were approved by Congress and that Congress was inhibited from acts respecting religion. In the linked original, note that this section was stricken from his final letter so as not to offend members of his party in the eastern states. While Jefferson himself was undoubtedly a religious man in his personal life he felt there was an absolute wall that prevented him from performing religious acts as President. He not only demonstrates an opinion that the government cannot establish a state religion but also that the government cannot commit any acts respecting religion. This would include any endorsements of any particular religious belief over another including theism as a whole. Also note that just two days after issuing the Danbury letter he attended church services in the House of Representatives. He fully supported personal freedom of religion but opposed any official government involvement.

In typical activist style that bit of misquoting has been used ever since in an effort to change the meaning of the Constitution rather than amending the Constitution to mean something different.

 

So the political battle rages, and the secularists who preach acceptance and brotherhood and understanding systematically try to remove all religion from society.

And that is what is required to present an equal, unbiased, secular government to all, regardless of personal religious beliefs.

[Racoon]

Woah! :hihi:

[CraigD]

… at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

I believe a collection of related regulations (not adopted public law, but the implementation of law as public policy), related to contraception and sexually transmitted disease prevention is less than ideal – that is, has a overall negative impact on health and society - as a result of Christian influence on the oversight process in the US FDA. A well-publicized example is the process of approval of emergency contraception and abortificant drugs, AKA “morning after pills”, such as “Plan B” and RU-486. Although approved as prescription medications, these drugs are most effective when used as soon as possible after intercourse, making the requirement to obtain a physician’s prescription a practical impediment to their effective use. I believe this wikipedia article provides an accurate and unbiased summary of the controversy surrounding these classes of drugs in the US.

 

Similar cases exist. In general, a reasonable person may conclude that significant constituency are exerting influence on the various US governments to curtail sexual behavior contrary to certain religious doctrine, advocating a policy of “abstinence only”. Spokespersons for this constituency generally defend this policy on scientific grounds by contending that is a comprehensive pregnancy and disease prevention program of proven value, superior to drug and mechanical contraception and prophylaxis. This contention is not supported by well controlled studies.

 

Although the struggle for an against legislative and regulatory control of human sexual behavior is neither new, one-sided, nor entirely politically polarized – the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives recently introduced legislation compelling the FDA to issue a decision on “Plan B” without further delay H.R.4229, it is scientifically and statistically demonstrable that many current US health regulations have a negative impact of health, with consequences as severe as unnecessary death.

 

An example of a former state policy due to Christian influence may be found in 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the US Supreme Court set aside a 19th century law banning any form of contraception.