"There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state

[noahmijo]

WRONG Inbreeders.

I just thought I'd throw this out there for those of you who like me are forced to live in a backass state where interest groups toss propositions with religious intentions (Read Gay Marriage Bans)

Of course we know the only reason they do this is to make more conservative voters show up on election day.

The term "Separation of church and state" comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association (at the time another victim's cult for the "oppressed" christians)

Jan.1.1802.

Exerpt from a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

"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."



I found this to be the greatest tool for shutting freepers the hell up fast whenever they try to pull this shit on me about there not being any law calling for church and state to be separated.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Oh yes, I go round and round with some people on this

[seabeyond]

2. but the letter isnt the constitution. what laws have allowed judges

to stop prayer in school and the amendment in court houses?

[Sinti]

3. The First Amendment in your Bill of Rights - the first sentence thereof

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 state may not force anyone to pray to any particular god or follow any particular religion, i.e., respect the establishment of a religion or prevent the free exercise thereof. You can't force my kid to pray with your prayers to your god, and I can't do the same to yours. In VA they had 10 minutes of "quite time" in which they could pray every morning if they chose to, and no one complained, because it was not a violation. Do you mean Commandments in court houses?

[tbyg52]

5. And also:

Article VI:
no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

(My addendum--but just try getting elected as an atheist, agnostic, freethinker, whatever. Still, the clause *is* there.)

[seabeyond]

9. thank you. saved me from hunting it up. i am in another

conversation, why i thought i would ask here. appreciate

[noahmijo]

4. I would defer that to the 1st amendment itself

In the sense that it is on Tax Payer's time that such monuments are erected and when time is used for religious purposes (praying). Unlike say some guy preaching on a sidewalk you can't just walk out of a school or just take down a government mounted monument-you're forced to deal with it to pay for it which in essence is the government forcing the idea down your throat.

So one more time on this, you have the freedom to preach about whatever religion you want in a public environment where others have the ability to listen or walk away-that's freedom of speech in practice. You can either listen or think the guy is a loon and just walk away.

In a school you can't do this, or at least your kid necessarily can't. A statue with religious intentions funded by taxpayers speaks for itself as being a direct violation of government forcing religion onto its populace.

I do agree however with the above comment about the notion of "moment of silence" where students are given a choice to pray in their head or just sit quiet that there is no violation of the 1st amendment there.

[seabeyond]

10. i think the moment of silence is a perfect adaquit compromise

thank you for addressing the monument part. i didnt see how that was a part of it.

to be honest, we never prayed in our schools, two states growing up. my father from the midwest told me they never prayed in school. so i dont buy this whole "took prayer out of school" thing

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Anybody who says that needs a course in reading comprehension

The Contstution mentions religion twice, one of those in the adjective form religious. Both references separate church and state.

From Article 6 of the main body:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

and, of course, the First Amendment:

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

No what part of that don't these illiterates understand?

[jwirr]

7. I think that separation of church and state is implied in the idea

of freedom of religion. You cannot have freedom of religion when the state and church are one. If you live in a state that determines your religion you are not free to chose. Likewise, if a religion can take over your government and dictate to you then you are not free to chose. So it may not be explicit in the Constitution but it is implied.

[sarge43]

8. One of the things the idiots can't/won't get is Separation also

protects religions from gov't interference

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Invalidated an Oregon law which required parents to send their children to public schools until they had completed the eight grade, thus preventing their attendance at accredited parochial and other private schools.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940): The Court held for the first time that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment applies to the First Amendment's guarantees of religious freedom, including an absolute freedom of belief and a qualified freedom of action.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947): The Court upheld the public payment of the cost of transporting children to religious schools as a means by which parents can "get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools". The Court recognized the 'wall between Church and state" but held that it had not been breached by this decision.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970): A taxpayer's suit (cf. Flast v. Cohen under under The Spending Power, page 77) designed to test a state law granting to churches a property-tax exemption on land used exclusively for religious purposes. The Court said that (a) such an exemption is not in violation of the First Amendment; it is rather an evidence of the state's benevolent neutrality toward religion, so lng as no sect or denomination is favored over others and none suffers interference; (b) such exemption does not inhibit the activities of other organizations that contribute to the moral improvement of the community; and (c) it creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state -- far less than assessment and taxation of church property would create {my emphasis}

(I especially like this one. That's a good comeback for the No Separation types. Fine, you don't want a wall between your religion and the gov't? Get ready to pay taxes through the nose on all your church holdings.)

The above from The Constitution of the United States with Case Summaries 11th ed, edited by Edward Conrad Smith