Separation of Church and State

[Cedars]

Yes I think that separation of church and state is important, even vital in the USA and I would hope someday all countries model their approach along this line.

 

Right or wrong, religion is a rally point for a lot of people. It presents itself as an absolute power or bridge between people and absolute power. There is so much room for abuse of others under the guise of many religions, that it seems to me that the only safeguard against abuse in the name of a religions God is to keep its idealisms separate from government. Behaviors that are tolerated by one idealism are an abomination under another. Theologies tend to be intolerant of some, in my view. As it is, I do not think a muslim, a hindu, a pagan, an animist, or several other religious idealisms could be elected president of the united states. It would be religion that would be the deciding factor because it is that influential on that many people in the USA.

 

Religion in the USA is not limited by the safeguards put in place by the constitution and several court rulings, regarding the free exercise of religions. The Judge Moore ruling a few years ago is a good example. He feels his freedom of religion was compromised but it was not. There is no Christian doctrine that I am aware of that demands the display of carved rocks at your place of employment. What was compromised is his ability to force others to view his religious idealisms in his government work environment. He could have opened a law office and displayed his rock on the front lawn if he chose to. But he did not own the property of this courthouse, we the people do (as in the residents of that county/state). If he began working for another lawyer, he would not have had a right to display his rock of commandments on their property either. Depending on the rules of his city, he could have probably displayed this rock on the front lawn of his home (if he owned it). But if a city rule prevented him from this, the city rule would have applied to all of his neighbors regardless of their religious affilation.

 

As far as whether the USA follows this philosophy or not, I think generally it tries to, but it sometimes takes an outside look/oversight to ensure that it does (Judge Moore case). When a majority of persons in a county hold that idealism, it is easy for the voters themselves to instill a like minded government (kansas board of education and several other districts across different states). These people truely believe their interpretations of their job is correct, but it is often a remote view that decides correctly whether they have overstepped the boundries outlined in the constitution.

[Celeste]

Originally Posted by Infamous

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

 

I am a person of faith also, and I absolutely agree with you.

 

For those living in Utah, separation of church and state has become a major issue in the past decade, not only in government, but in our civic and social structure as well. The sultification of non-LDS members , myself included, is evident in dozens of instances.

Because Utah is predominantely Mormon, (70%), their religious beliefs and overall wealth, are hegemonical forces that constantly need to be reckoned with.

For instance, several years ago, the LDS church secretely bought a city block to create a public park in the middle of downtown Salt Lake, Utahs capital. Somehow, the church obtained the exclusive right to proselytize in the park. 4 years and many arrests later, the Tenth Circuit finally ruled that the pedestrian easement reserved to the City is a traditional public forum to which the free speech clause of the First Amendment applies, and therefore the LDS Church’s restrictions on expressive conduct violated the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. It was amazing to me that this clear violation continued for over 4 years!

To this day, Mormon security guards will ensure that the anyone openly displaying contravene behavior finds another route to any of the adjoining buildings, sidewalks or malls.

 

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, was also highly debated here. Allegedly, Mormon legislators were/are major contributers. For those that haven't read the CRA, it states;

 

"The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

 

In other words, the bill ensures that God's divine word would hereafter trump all our notions about freedom, law and rights and our courts can't say a thing.

 

In Utah, "All that stands between the Church and total control of the state is the Establishment Clause and the ACLU."

[FredFlash]

"The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

 

Would an order by an officer or agent of the government to execute Joe Jones by slow fire for not keeping the Sabbath be an acknowledgment of God as the source of law?

 

Fred

[FredFlash]

Why You Should Not Obey Religious Advice From The Government

 

If you so much as even consider the advice of the government on religious matters, you are on the highway to hell. You are rejecting the absolute and exclusive authority of Christ over the things that are be rendered only to God.

 

It makes no difference whether the government's advice is good or bad or true or false. The religious advice that the Serpent/Satan gave to Eve was good and true advice. But she still should not have allowed it to influence her religious duty not to eat the forbidden fruit.

 

When Even was accused of violating her duty to God, the Serpent/Satan was not there to defend her. When you are accused of obeying the religious commandments of the government instead of your conscience and Christ, the government will not be there to defend you.

 

No man can serve two masters. You need to decide who is the authority over your duties to God. Choose either the government or God?

 

FVF

[Celeste]

Would an order by an officer or agent of the government to execute Joe Jones by slow fire for not keeping the Sabbath be an acknowledgment of God as the source of law?

 

Fred

 

Yes, in a sense, this could be plausible under the CRA or Senate bill S.520.

 

With the CRA's passing, the "acknowledgment of God" would serve as valid law.

Both church and state could claim political power, and the general population would be unable to question the dictates of their "divinely" appointed rulers. With CRA in force, many human rights or freedoms would be simply eliminated through excommunication, punishment, or as you suggested, death.

 

Many have dismissed the CRA as wishful thinking on behave of the Fundamentalists, but the fact is, the bill has found 45 co-sponsors in the House and eight in the Senate. While the likelihood of passage remains slim, the continous support that this bill is receiving makes it deserving of our close attention. If passed, the CRA could also eliminate the portion of the Fourteenth Amendment that applies to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights directed to the state and local governments.

:Noteworthy: On November 11, 2005, the Louisiana state legislature passed a resolution SCR 30, ( "the United States Constitution makes no restriction on the ability of the states to acknowledge God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe,") requesting that Congress pass the CRA. The resolution, passed the state senate unanimously.

 

As a notary public, I am a commissioned officer of the State. I could arrest and punish my neighbor for mowing his lawn on Sunday under the jurisdiction of the CRA and I would be protected from any review, appeal, or writ of certiorari.....now that's a scary thought...

 

"While passage is not expected this session, the Constitution Restoration Act would “restore” the United States to a time and place in which civil rights were inaccessible. If passed, this attempted end run around the Constitution and the intent of the Founders will lead to fragmentation and confusion, ultimately failing to meet the equal protection requirement of the ultimate commandment, which is to love our neighbors as ourselves."

[FredFlash]

On November 11, 2005, the Louisiana state legislature passed a resolution SCR 30, "the United States Constitution makes no restriction on the ability of the states to acknowledge God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe," requesting that Congress pass the CRA.

 

If the God they believe in is so impotent that he needs the government to inform the people that is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, then their God is not the one who was crucified dead and buried and who rose from the dead.

 

The risen Christ did not go back to see Pilate and tell him it was now his civil duty to spread the good news to the people.

 

Fred

[HydrogenBond]

If I moved to another country I would want to assimilate the culture. It would not bother me if they taught me their religion. I have free will and will learn what I can and want and try to average it with what I know. Imagine if I went to another culture, and me being the minority of one, was able to tell everyone they can not longer do anything I am afraid or ignorant of because I am so insecure in my beliefs. Most cultures would just ignor me or tell me to leave. I would be like a virus trying to take over a cell. If they used the social immune system on me I would deserve it since I am a foreign invader. When in Rome....

[FredFlash]

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

 

That statement reveals that you have no clue whatsoever about James Madison Doctrine of Separation of Church and State.

 

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.

 

Give me the names of five well educated people and proof that they actually made that claim.

 

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 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 recognitions of holiday are you talking about and who says they are establishments of 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...... 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.

 

Show me where in their letter the Danbury Baptists even mentioned a concern about the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion; then I will show you where they complained about the Connecticut Certificate Law of 1791.

 

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.

 

What is being misquote and where is some evidence?

 

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

 

Any religion, that is supposed to be from the eternal being, that can't stand up to a few mortal secularists deserves to be removed from society.

 

True Christianity asks no aid from the civil authority. It began without civil authority and wherever it has taken such authority, it has perished. To depend on civil authority for its promulgation is to acknowledge its own weakness, which it can never afford to do.

 

True Christianity is able to fight its own battles. Its weapons are moral and spiritual, and not carnal. Armed with these, and these alone, it is neither afraid nor “ashamed” to be compared with other religions, and to withstand them single-handed. And the very reason why it is not so afraid or " ashamed " is that it is not the power of man," but " the power of God," on which it depends.

 

True Christianity never shields itself behind majorities. Nero, and the other persecuting Roman emperors, were amply supported by majorities; and yet the pure and peaceable religion of Christ in the end triumphed over them all; and it was only when it attempted, itself, to enforce religion by the arm of authority that it began to wane. A form of religion that cannot live under equal and impartial laws ought to die, and sooner or later must die.

 

The Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati v. John D. Minor et. al.; Supreme Court of Ohio; December Term, 1872.

 

Each of us should be able to determine his own views on the topic.

 

Why should you have that right?

 

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.

 

What exactly is "an establishment of religion?" Is the law recommending a daily affirmation of belief in "one nation under God" an establishment of religion? Is so, what principle or rule did you apply to make your determination?

 

Fred

[HydrogenBond]

A good example of the inconsistency of the enforcement of the separation of church and state is rationalism. The rational way to look at reality began as a religious cult that worshiped the goddest Rationalis. As a scientist, I am a proud member of this cult, and although I appreciate the State giving Rationalis the extra preferential treatment, it may not be fair to the rest of the religions. In other words, if someone erected a statue of rationalis and reintroduced it as a formal religion, legally, one could no longer use reason in America?

[FredFlash]

A good example of the inconsistency of the enforcement of the separation of church and state is rationalism. The rational way to look at reality began as a religious cult that worshiped the goddest Rationalis. As a scientist, I am a proud member of this cult, and although I appreciate the State giving Rationalis the extra preferential treatment, it may not be fair to the rest of the religions. In other words, if someone erected a statue of rationalis and reintroduced it as a formal religion, legally, one could no longer use reason in America?

 

What great eternal, or other type, priniciple of the law of Separation of Church and State did you apply to arrive at that conclusion?

 

Fred

[Zythryn]

Actually it wouldn't be that no one in America could use reason. What would be the case is that the government would not be lawfully able to recognize reason.

 

Um.... wait a minute.... must have already happened :)

 

Mark

[Zythryn]

As a side note, I don't believe government should remove all religion from public grounds. I do believe that all religions should be given equal treatment.

 

So, for example, leave the 10 commandments in a courthouse, right next to the important documents from the Koran, as well as other religions such as Wiccan, Hindu and others.

 

Mark

[HydrogenBond]

Zythryn hit it on the head. The goverment would not be able to use reason as is evident in the irrational nature of partitian politics.

 

I am not familiar with all the laws associated with the separation of Church and State. Let us look at this scenario. If one of the mainstream religions decided to no longer call itself a religion but a club, then their artifacts would no longer be in violation of the separation of church or state. It would be the choice of the local tax payers whether city hall is green or blue. The same is true of rationalis. It is no longer called a religion but a philosophy and therefore is exempt from religious restrictions, even though its very beginnings can be traced to religion.

[FredFlash]

As a side note, I don't believe government should remove all religion from public grounds. I do believe that all religions should be given equal treatment. So, for example, leave the 10 commandments in a courthouse, right next to the important documents from the Koran, as well as other religions such as Wiccan, Hindu and others. Mark

 

James Madison's fundamental principle of religious liberty was that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the cognizance of the government. Disputes that involve our duties to the Creator are not to resolved by the government. That means no government dictates, or even friendly advice, on matters of the people's religion.

 

That meant - after the "final settlement of the religious issue" in 1833 (When the Jeffersonian Republicans came to power in Massacusetts) until 1863 (when Abe Lincoln broke God's eternal law of Separation of Church and State) - 47 consecutive years with no American President issuing an executive religioius recommendations.

 

It also meant no legislative authority over "In God We Trust." Whether or not we have a duty to God to trust in him is no business of the government.

 

God is the absolute and exclusive authority over the issue of trust in him If he wants our trust in him declared on the nation's coins, he will tell us so.

 

God has never, not even once, ever asked a human authority, or a government set up my men, to inform of us his wishes.

 

Fred

[Freddy]

As a side note, I don't believe government should remove all religion from public grounds. I do believe that all religions should be given equal treatment.

 

So, for example, leave the 10 commandments in a courthouse, right next to the important documents from the Koran, as well as other religions such as Wiccan, Hindu and others.

 

Mark

 

Religion and government must be kept separate. Religion must be a person's private beliefs. Religion is fine in the home, church, and on a street corner. Religious beliefs must stay out of public schools, courthouses, and all government buildings and property.

[Mercedes Benzene]

I do think that Church and State should be seperate...

Althought I would like to see another Catholic president. :shrug:

[Racoon]

I do think that Church and State should be seperate...

Althought I would like to see another Catholic president. :)

 

Agreed.

 

Only if its JFK's clone...:shrug: