Seperation of Church and State

[Humanexpedition]

We are not truly all the separated when the Vatican has it's own embassy for the United States and "In God We Trust" all over our money. We are mocked worldwide for this hypocrisy and insult the people we try to bring democracy to because they know we have not yet perfected how we carry out the concept.

[Chris]

Bill of Rights in Constitution regulates government not religion.

[Chloe]

We are not truly all the separated when the Vatican has it's own embassy for the United States and "In God We Trust" all over our money. We are mocked worldwide for this hypocrisy and insult the people we try to bring democracy to because they know we have not yet perfected how we carry out the concept.

I'm pretty sure there is an embassy because Vatican City is actually a country

[Mister D]

The Vatican has embassies all over the world.

[Peter1469]

The US has an embassy there too, although I think the ambassador job is unfilled: http://vatican.usembassy.gov/

[TheDictator]

Seperation of Church and State have nothing to do with democracy. The First Amen. was to keep government out of the Church not to keep the church out of government.

[nic34]

The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citize n) in 1789) but it was interpreted as establishing a separation of Church and State only after the letter of Jefferson (see section United States for more details).

At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional, some of them with official state churches. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833.

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

[Santa's Little Helper]

Seperation of Church and State have nothing to do with democracy. The First Amen. was to keep government out of the Church not to keep the church out of government.

So tell me do you support an American THEOCRACY a Christian like Tyranny

This is PRECISELY why all religion should be removed from government and religious organizations should be prohibited from sponsoring candidates or donating to Political parties

[Chris]

The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citize n) in 1789) but it was interpreted as establishing a separation of Church and State only after the letter of Jefferson (see section United States for more details).

At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional, some of them with official state churches. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833.

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

And Jefferson got his notion of a wall of separation from Roger Williams' "Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered" published in 1644:


First, the faithful labors of many witnesses of Jesus Christ, existing in the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both SEPARATE from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the HEDGE, or WALL OF SEPARATION, between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the WALL itself, removed the candlestick, &c. and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.

See also Isaiah 5:1-7.

[TheDictator]

So tell me do you support an American THEOCRACY a Christian like Tyranny

This is PRECISELY why all religion should be removed from government and religious organizations should be prohibited from sponsoring candidates or donating to Political parties


Wow talk about being totalitarian. Should non-democratic political parties be prohibited from sponsoring candidates also? Like the National Workers Party.


The Answer to your question is I support a Democratic Republican form of government.

[Ivan88]

The USA has officially adopted a religion. They adopted the Talmud and its 7 Noahide Laws in all their ramifications:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foFsFOV42pI

[zelmo1234]

So tell me do you support an American THEOCRACY a Christian like Tyranny

This is PRECISELY why all religion should be removed from government and religious organizations should be prohibited from sponsoring candidates or donating to Political parties

Spo you think that the first amendment should be repealed?

[Chloe]

The USA has officially adopted a religion. They adopted the Talmud and its 7 Noahide Laws in all their ramifications:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foFsFOV42pI

Ugh

I hope i'm wrong but Im guessing that those specific laws on how to be moral and live your life, the Talmud, and the views and beliefs incorporated in them all are only considered bad to you because it has Judaism attached to it?

[TheDictator]

Ivan88 are you a member of the Nazi Party of the USA?

[Chris]

Ugh

I hope i'm wrong but Im guessing that those specific laws on how to be moral and live your life, the Talmud, and the views and beliefs incorporated in them all are only considered bad to you because it has Judaism attached to it?

Nazism was opposed to Judaism and tried to wipe it out, Ivan's post was, to say the least, wacky.

[Chloe]

פטח שמח

Ivan ;)

[Chris]

פטח שמח

Ivan ;)

:shocked:

[Chloe]

FYI moderators that's not an insult above to Ivan so don't worry. It's still on the serious side :)

[Chris]

FYI moderators that's not an insult above to Ivan so don't worry. It's still on the serious side :)

J/K. It means Happy Holidays or something like that.

[Chloe]

J/K. It means Happy Holidays or something like that.

Its a Passover greeting yes

[Chloe]

Gotta love Hebrew keyboards on an iPhone. The only problem is that everything gets reversed.

[Chloe]

So tell me do you support an American THEOCRACY a Christian like Tyranny

This is PRECISELY why all religion should be removed from government and religious organizations should be prohibited from sponsoring candidates or donating to Political parties

You will never really be able to remove religion entirely from government since it means you'd have to remove it from the individual as well. You can certainly do your best to make sure a religious belief doesn't oppress someone else, but it will never be completely separate.

[Chris]

Its a Passover greeting yes

Close as I could get with Google Translate. :icon_study:

Oops, we should get back to topic, say, separation of church and state is to keep government out of religion and protect liberty of conscience.

[Chris]

You will never really be able to remove religion entirely from government since it means you'd have to remove it from the individual as well. You can certainly do your best to make sure a religious belief doesn't oppress someone else, but it will never be completely separate.

Exactly, the Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3 explicitly states there shall be no religious test: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

[Cigar]

Keep Government out of Religion and into Uterus's :grin:

[TheDictator]

Exactly, the Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3 explicitly states there shall be no religious test: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

That only applies to running for office. Some people will not be elected in some regions because of their religion, people just will not vote for them.

What it is not saying in this section is anything about laws based on religious belief. The fact is all of our laws are based on someones belief of right or wrong religious or not.

[Chris]

That only applies to running for office. Some people will not be elected in some regions because of their religion, people just will not vote for them.

What it is not saying in this section is anything about laws based on religious belief. The fact is all of our laws are based on someones belief of right or wrong religious or not.

Not sure I agree with your living document interpretation, it specifically reads "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

And it says nothing at all about laws.

[TheDictator]

I do not believe the constitution is a living document.

This section is talking about government jobs not laws past by our government. Their is nothing in the constitution that says anything about our laws being religious or not religious.

[Chris]

I do not believe the constitution is a living document.

This section is talking about government jobs not laws past by our government. Their is nothing in the constitution that says anything about our laws being religious or not religious.

Sorry, just assumed that by your rewriting it. The no religious test clause simply says nothing at all about laws.


This section is talking about government jobs not laws past by our government.

Agree.


Their is nothing in the constitution that says anything about our laws being religious or not religious.

On the contrary, the following does say that


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[Common]

I'm pretty sure there is an embassy because Vatican City is actually a country

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!

[nic34]

At one point, the Court ruled that separate institutions for black and white citizens were perfectly legal and constitutional, as long as the institutions were equal in power and efficacy — the "separate but equal" doctrine.

The Supreme Court turned this doctrine on its ear by declaring that separate cannot mean equal, and segregation was unconstitutional.

A living constitution is necessary.

[Ravi]

I do not believe the constitution is a living document.

This section is talking about government jobs not laws past by our government. Their is nothing in the constitution that says anything about our laws being religious or not religious.
Why the amendment process if not?

[Chris]

At one point, the Court ruled that separate institutions for black and white citizens were perfectly legal and constitutional, as long as the institutions were equal in power and efficacy — the "separate but equal" doctrine.

The Supreme Court turned this doctrine on its ear by declaring that separate cannot mean equal, and segregation was unconstitutional.

A living constitution is necessary.

Necessary to rule of man, where anything goes, instead of rule of law.

All you've shown is how men in robes can whimsically change while the Constitution remains the same other than through an amendment process.

[TheDictator]

Chris, the First amend. is talking about the establishing of a State Church under the power of the federal government, is not talking about local or state governments.
The second part says that government has no right to restrict religion. ( The federal courts have violated the Constitution in many of their rulings )

And there is nothing about laws being religious in this section.

[Chris]

Why the amendment process if not?

I think he means not living in the sense of interpretation. The amendment process is not interpretive.

[Chris]

Chris, the First amend. is talking about the establishing of a State Church under the power of the federal government, is not talking about local or state governments.
The second part says that government has no right to restrict religion. ( The federal courts have violated the Constitution in many of their rulings )

And there is nothing about laws being religious in this section.

Read it carefully:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Don't skip over the "respecting" and note their is no article before religion. Any religious law could be seen as respecting an establishment of religion.

I agree on the second part for any law respecting an establishment of religion would necessarily violate as well free exercise.



Beside, dictator, you shifted topic we were discussing, the no religious test clause.

[Newpublius]

A living constitution is necessary.

No, then what you have is a system based on parliamentary supremacy, where statutes rule supreme. Your point about segregation is well taken, but I believe it isn't in accordance with the historical evidence.

The Constitution actually DID change by the XIV Amendment. The terms of that document were really quite clear and in that document you have a P&I Clause, a Due Process Clause and an Equal Protection Clause.

In a case that had little to do with race relations, the Slaughterhouse Cases carved a farcical distinction between the 'privileges and immunities' of STATE citizenship as opposed to the P&I of FEDERAL citizenship. So, in theory the Court took an absurdly narrow view of the XIV Amendment that the XIV Amendment only precluded a state from infringing on a citizens FEDERAL P&I. That interpretation was, in a sense, redundant, completely ignored the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection went right out the window.

Plessy's logic is built on the back of that decision: "The proper construction of this amendment was first called to the attention of this court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, which involved, however, not a question of race, but one of exclusive privileges. The case did not call for any expression of opinion as to the exact rights it was intended to secure to the colored race, but it was said generally that its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and of the states, and to protect from the hostile legislation of the states the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those of citizens of the states. The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either." Plessy v Ferguson.

THAT is what a "living" Constitution gets you.

Essentially the Supreme Court read out entire portions of the XIV Amendment.

The historical result, eventually when Brown v Board of Ed came around, the Supreme Court utilized the Due Process Clause of the XIV Amendment (should've been based on the whole kit and kaboodle if you ask me), but that's another matter.

The Constitution has specific mechanisms within itself to effect a change, Amendments, Constitutional Conventions....a Supreme Court decision is not supposed to be able to effect a 'change' of the Constitution, in point of fact, it obviously does

[Ravi]

I think he means not living in the sense of interpretation. The amendment process is not interpretive.
hmmm....it is interpretive in the sense that it allows us to interpret (or make better) the original document. For instance, abolishing slavery and even the failed ERA seek only to clarify (interpret) the original document.

[Chris]

hmmm....it is interpretive in the sense that it allows us to interpret (or make better) the original document. For instance, abolishing slavery and even the failed ERA seek only to clarify (interpret) the original document.

Amendment actually change the document. For example, the 18th amendment enacted prohibition, it became supreme law of land. The 21st repealed it. It's not re-interpreted, it's gone.

[Ravi]

Amendment actually change the document. For example, the 18th amendment enacted prohibition, it became supreme law of land. The 21st repealed it. It's not re-interpreted, it's gone.
That was a poor amendment and should have never been ratified. One stupid amendment doesn't change the point I made.

[Chris]

That was a poor amendment and should have never been ratified. One stupid amendment doesn't change the point I made.

Give an example of an amendment that merely interprets the Constitution.

[TheDictator]

Read it carefully:



Don't skip over the "respecting" and note their is no article before religion. Any religious law could be seen as respecting an establishment of religion.

I agree on the second part for any law respecting an establishment of religion would necessarily violate as well free exercise.



Beside, dictator, you shifted topic we were discussing, the no religious test clause.

Sorry, I did not mean to shift the topic.

There is no official religious test for Office, there is an unofficial test or an individuual Teas of religion. ( some people will not vote for a person because of his religion )
Mitt was a good example of that.

This part is talking about respecting an establishment of a National Church or Religion, not laws based on religion. Like you can not be married to two people at the same time.

[Ravi]

Give an example of an amendment that merely interprets the Constitution.Thirteenth. Clarified that all men are created equal by outlawing slavery.

[TheDictator]

Thirteenth. Clarified that all men are created equal by outlawing slavery.

I'm sorry but the 13th did not interpret anything It changed the constitution making salvery no longer legal.

[Newpublius]

Thirteenth. Clarified that all men are created equal by outlawing slavery.

Prior to that slavery was a state issue that wasn't regulated by the Federal government. After, slavery was abolished. Before the XIV Amendment, Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Slavery was its own issue, but it was also a 'federalism' issue too....

[Chris]

Sorry, I did not mean to shift the topic.

There is no official religious test for Office, there is an unofficial test or an individuual Teas of religion. ( some people will not vote for a person because of his religion )
Mitt was a good example of that.

This part is talking about respecting an establishment of a National Church or Religion, not laws based on religion. Like you can not be married to two people at the same time.

Agreed, voting can be for religious reasons. The people are free to vote their conscience as the Constitution only restricts government.



This part is talking about respecting an establishment of a National Church or Religion

Just not what the 2nd amendment says. It does not say "a religion" nor "church", it simply prohibits any law relating to establishment of religion.It's a fine distinction but it's there in the text. Adding words to it changes it--I think that's where I mistook you for a living document type.

[Chris]

Thirteenth. Clarified that all men are created equal by outlawing slavery.

What portion of the Constitution did it reinterpret?

To me it revised the Constitution by adding protection of equal rights before the law contained in the Declaration.

(We may just be arguing semantics of the meaning of interpret and revise.)

[Peter1469]

hmmm....it is interpretive in the sense that it allows us to interpret (or make better) the original document. For instance, abolishing slavery and even the failed ERA seek only to clarify (interpret) the original document.

The states did not give the federal government any authority over slavery. The Founders could not agree on it during the Constitutional Convention, so the issue was tabled for 50 years.

[Ravi]

What portion of the Constitution did it reinterpret?

To me it revised the Constitution by adding protection of equal rights before the law contained in the Declaration.

(We may just be arguing semantics of the meaning of interpret and revise.)
You're probably right about the semantics. IMO, you can't have a constitution guaranteeing the freedom of all while allowing some to be enslaved. Therefore, the 13th shouldn't have been needed.

[Chris]

You're probably right about the semantics. IMO, you can't have a constitution guaranteeing the freedom of all while allowing some to be enslaved. Therefore, the 13th shouldn't have been needed.

It took time to transition. The seeds were planted in the Declaration. You had to have a compromise to reach freedom.

[Ravi]

I don't totally agree with that, but it is a valid point.

[Chris]

I don't totally agree with that, but it is a valid point.

Right, just an opinion, valid but perhaps not sound. :-)

[Peter1469]

Right, just an opinion, valid but perhaps not sound. :-)

I believe that there were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention which brought us our Constitution. Ultimately they created a document that gave the federal government only limited and enumerated powers. They are listed in the Constitution. There was no authority concerning the issue of slavery given to the federal government.

[Chris]

Limitations re slavery were found in the 3/5s compromise. In shirt, yes, the federal government had no power for a set time. I believe legislative attempts failed for that reason. Thus the Constitution was amended.

[Peter1469]

Limitations re slavery were found in the 3/5s compromise. In shirt, yes, the federal government had no power for a set time. I believe legislative attempts failed for that reason. Thus the Constitution was amended.

The 3/5ths compromise was an indirect limit on slavery; it did not empower the federal government to regulate / stop / continue / ramp it up. Because the issue was so contentious, the issue was tabled for 50 years.

[Chris]

The 3/5ths compromise was an indirect limit on slavery; it did not empower the federal government to regulate / stop / continue / ramp it up. Because the issue was so contentious, the issue was tabled for 50 years.

Thought part of the compromise, if only implicit, was that the 3/5ths ciuld not be even addressed until some time in the future.

[Cricket]

Prior to that slavery was a state issue that wasn't regulated by the Federal government. After, slavery was abolished. Before the XIV Amendment, Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Slavery was its own issue, but it was also a 'federalism' issue too....

What in the world are you talking about? Slavery wasn't abolished. It's common now and has been throughout this country's history.

[Captain Obvious]

What in the world are you talking about? Slavery wasn't abolished. It's common now and has been throughout this country's history.

Yeah, no kidding - you see the price of negros lately?

Might as well pick my own cotton.

:rollseyes:

[Mister D]

Yeah, no kidding - you see the price of negros lately?

Might as well pick my own cotton.

:rollseyes:

If I knew it was going turn out like this I would have.

[Cricket]

Yeah, no kidding - you see the price of negros lately?

Might as well pick my own cotton.

:rollseyes:

The price is about $7.25/hour, I think.

[Chris]

The price is about $7.25/hour, I think.

, rhetoric. Using slave metaphors for wages.