Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State".
And rightly so.
Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced.
I was not aware that people thought this.
However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Very good. Notice it does NOT say anything about a "particular" religion, only religion as a whole. And guess what? It was suggested no less than 3 times during the course of writing it by those devoted to religious tenets that it INCLUDE the distinction of not promoting a "particular" religion over another, but guess what? That's not what this is about, and it was outvoted. Now then, since any law that respects an establishment of religion (as a whole) is forbidden, and that's all Congress does is make laws, then there's no need to talk about religious interests in Congress, now is there?
The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.
Yes, it was.
The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists,
another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very
alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state
established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury
Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a
national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from
which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first
amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn 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.
(1)
First, here are both letters in their entiretly: http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html
Let's look at the WHOLE paragraph in Jefferson's, shall we? "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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. 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."
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and
state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of
which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state
would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the
Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own
prominent preachers. Williams had said:
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 broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick,
and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will
eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be
walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
Where is this explanation spelled out by Jefferson? I look forward to a link to this explanation as written by Jefferson himself.
The "wall" was understood as one-directional;
By whom? Certainly not by Jefferson or Madison! Have you read what these men wrote to each other concerning religion and government?
its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
But the GOVERNMENT is NOT free to teach the people biblical values NOR to support the church in IT'S teachings. Thus, the wall is NOT one-directional, and DOES effectively protect the state (and the people - ALL the people) from the church's influences.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England.
You bet they did! And that's WHY we have the government we have today.
Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates.
It certainly was recent history to them. It was ongoing. The rack, the red-hot poker through the tongue for blasphemy, etc., were still in practice in Europe. Not only that, but there were laws on the books of individual states like MA. at the time with the same types of punishments for those religious crimes. The founders knew these religious laws had to go away, and that's part of what the Constitution does; It makes it impossible for individual states to make laws which are in direct opposition to US laws, one of which is: "The Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See how nice and tidy that is?
They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.
How can you have freedom OF religion without having freedom FROM other religions? Of COUSE it means freedom FROM religion: Freedom FROM EVERY religion YOU don't want imposed on YOU!! Works great too, doesn't it?
The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs.
How about to KEEP FROM having a morality imposed by religious opinions that YOU do not share? Isn't that a valid reason to keep church and state seperate? Or is it OK with you if we get a LAW where at sundown every day for the rest of the time you are a US citizen, you MUST stop what you are doing, face east, get down on your face and pray? Sound ridiculous? It's not any more ridiculous to the people that believe it than any other religious beliefs are to the people that believe theirs. That includes any you believe.
Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
If that's true, where are God's laws in the Constitution, the law of the land? Let's take a look, shall we?
1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Where
is it? Which article or amendment would that be?
2. Thou shalt not take
the name of the Lord in vain. Where is it? Which article or
amendment would that be?
3. Keep the Sabbath Holy. We got a LAW
for that? Where is it? Which article or amendment would that
be?
4. Honor they father and mother. Another LAW I don't know
about? Where is it? Which article or amendment would that be?
5.
Thou shalt not kill. Yeah. We NEEDED religion to tell us this,
huh? We'd have never known this was wrong if the bible hadn't spelled
it out for us, eh?
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. When did this
become a LAW? Where is it? Which article or amendment would that
be?
7. Thou shalt not steal. Yeah. We NEEDED religion to tell us
this, huh? We'd have never known this was wrong if the bible
hadn't spelled it out for us, eh?
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor. Good one! Never would have figured this MORAL
conduct out on our own!
9. Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's house.
According to the dictionary, to "covet" is to wish for longingly. Is this
a new law? I can't wish for something anymore? Where is it?
Which article or amendment would that be?
10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy
Neighbor's Wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor
anything that is thy neighbor's. Gee, you'd think with this law, there'd
be no need for #9... Oh well, is this a new law? I can't wish for
something anymore? Where is it? Which article or amendment would
that be?
It looks like we got 2 out of 10 ( 20%) of God's MAIN laws covered. You'd think that if they REALLY were trying to base our government, laws and morality on the BIBLE, they'd have gone with more than 20%, wouldn't you? And that's not even counting all the laws about not eating shellfish like lobsters, crabs and clams, nor about stoning to death your daughter if she gets pregnant out of wedlock or any of the really juicy stuff...
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
That's EXACTLY the point. There will ALWAYS be a religion that will be dominant in a country. The ONLY way to ensure that ALL the people that are NOT part of that particular religion are treated EQUALLY is to NOT recognize by legal means ANY religious tenets AT ALL, EVEN IF they represent MOST of the people of that country. See how tht works? Simple, really...
It's not bigotry against Christianity, it's how NOT to
show bigotry to ANY religion simultaneously.
Just turn the tables and
pretend that Christianity is in the minority and Muslims are the majority.
Is it ok with you if they pass a law saying to pull over on the highway at
sundown, get out of your car, face East and get on your face or face prison
time? Get caught with a Christian book and face lethal injection? No
problems with that?
Each form of government has a guiding
principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in
which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the
guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear.
LOL! Where did you copy this drivel from?
Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others.
Sounds a lot like what the religious right is trying to
do by working so hard to get their religion into my
politics...
The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government,
but the power is in the virtue of the people.
Only within the scope that the Constitution allows
it. The people do not have the power to supercede the Constitution, nor
the Supreme Court on some unvirtuous whim or desire of the
people.
The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible.
It is also shown in common sense. It doesn't take a
religious scholar to understand that killing one another is wrong; that
cheating, lying and stealing are wrong; etc., etc., etc... This false
notion propogated by the religious that morality stems soley from the Bible is
unfounded. Simply look at every indigenous tribe that we ever encountered
throughout history. They all had the same moral instincts in their culture
without the benefit of a single bible, long before they ever knew a
"white man" or a torture device known as a cross existed.
This is
why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's.
No, it was taught in public schools until then because it
wasn't legally challenged until then. When it was, it went bye-bye
because it was unconstitutional. Further proof that this is NOT a country
FOUNDED on the Bible, contrary to popular Christian
beliefs.
Government officials were required to declare their
belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the
U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).
I wonder why it took so long to straighten that out? I mean,
after all, our founding fathers put it RIGHT IN the Constitution: "No
religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or public
trust under the United States." -- U.S. Constitution, Article VI.iii
(1787). Gee, why do you think our God-fearing founders put such a thing in
the Constitution, making it the LAW of the land? Could it be that they
weren't too serious about making this a "Christian" nation, after
all?
God was seen as the author of natural law and
morality.
Maybe they should have put that in the
Consitution... Or do you just mean by the religous folks?
If
one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And
by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.
Oh, well, that DEFINITELY should be in the
Constitution! I mean, it's SO important, it just shouldn't be left
out! So, ummm... where is it? Or do you just mean the religious
folks?
The two primary places where morality is taught are the
family and the church.
And that's a good place to
leave them.
The church was allowed to influence the government in
righteousness and justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the
church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our
foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the
church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government
will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of
the country's.
Show me this influence. I need
to write to a Congressman about it.
Government was never meant to
be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be
our servant.
Agreed.
The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights.
That is such horsepucky! They didn't even give the people the full power to vote! It was reserved for landowners. Even today we count electoral votes, not individual votes. They KNEW the people couldn't be trusted TOO far to govern themselves, that's WHY there's a Constitution; To keep us from doing foolish things like allowing the majority religion to guide our government in making laws, simply because they think "majority rules" It's just not true!
Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people.
And...???
The worldview at the time of the
founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is
corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another
arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so.
And we call it "Capitalism". Say it with me now... "Capitalism". It's what we do when we go climb that pole or boom up in that bucket or park our a$$ at that desk. Either you are for it or you are for "Communism". Say it with me now... "Communism". Your choice, pal. Tell me, oh wise one, which is the Bible view? Capitalism or Communism? Hmmm... Give up all your possessions? Be humble and obedient? Which is it?
They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks
and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make
certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set
up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned
earlier, Man tends towards wickedness.
Please direct
my mouse towards the documents where our founders discussed this aspect of their
feeling that they needed to set up our government this way for BIBLICAL or
RELIGIOUS reasons. Thanks in advance for the links which I know must be
forthcoming. I look forward to your help with this.
Just
because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted,
because the majority could easily err.
Yeah, even
the "moral majority". Get it?
Government was not to be run
by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the
principles of the Bible.
Oh, I guess you don't get
it... Hmmm... Too bad...
Our U.S. Constitution
was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for
this to be a Christian nation.
Doesn't seem to
be. Can't find any writings by the founders claiming it to be. CAN
find writings claiming it's NOT, like the Treaty of Tripoli. I believe
you're mistaken on this.
The Constitution had 55 people work upon
it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3)
And
yet, not once, single mention of god or Jesus ANYWHERE in the Constitution at
all. How did they miss that?
We can go back in history and
look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their
ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman
reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed
between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to
other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for
34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the
Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the
founding fathers were based on the Bible.
Please, a
link to this work, so that I can throughly review it.
Thanks.
The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and
incorporated them into our government.
Well, it
should be quite simple to tell us all what ideas from the Bible were
incorportated into OUR governement. A simple list will suffice, and need
not be in alphebetical order or anything. You could even start with, oh...
Slavery, for instance. (Biblical morality will kill ya...
LOL!!)
If it was their intention to separate the state and church
they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our
government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated
into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our
judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers
took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial,
legislative, and executive.
Show me the documents
our founders wrote where they say this is where they got the idea to do
this.
As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed
that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the
powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute
laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge
the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to
protect people from tyranny.
Where in the Bible does
it lay out the powers to the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches
of governement. Chapter and verse will suffice as I have my own
Bibles.
The President of the United States is free to influence
Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are
separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence
the state?
Because the church is NOT one of the
branches of government! DUH!! Ask me a hard
one!!
People have read too much into the phrase "separation of
church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from
ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is
illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These
standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law
because the church should be separated from the state?
You think that these ideas are solely in the realm of the
Bible? You think indians spent all their time murdering and stealing from
one another until the white man showed up? All the tribes in South America
did the same until Conquistadors bearing crosses mass-murdered them?
(Biblical morality will kill ya...)
Our founding fathers who
formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John
Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was
President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a
signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was
far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought
firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion
and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one
may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)
Good for him!! Bravo!! Jefferson
similarly did not attend either, but certainly influenced many, including
Madison, who did.
In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United
States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case
said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an
establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public
prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may
choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185
years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was
opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why
did they pray publicly in official meetings?
Good
question. Why don't you ask them next time you see them? It could be
the next question right after the slavery one. I suspect that it was
because they were POLITIANS who were trying to impress upon the people who, as
you well know, were by and large religious, that they too were pious,
trustworthy people that could lead them in governmental matters. But that
would be specualation on my part, so I'll have to defer to their writings, and
frankly, none spring to mind that will satisfactorily answer the
question.
It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in
school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James
Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the
boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing
so was against the law."(4)
If he was wronged, he
should have taken it to court. Did he? That's the way this
government thing works, ya know.
The U.S. Supreme Court with no
precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school.
The precedent is the US Constitution, First
Amendment. It is a PUBLIC shcool paid for by PUBLIC taxes of ALL the
people. It can therefor not condone the practice of open religious
cerremonies, such as prayer, to be allowed and promoted when there are others
that may not subscribe to those beliefs. You know this already though, I'm
sure.
On top of that, there is no precedent in the Bible for one to pray
openly in schools. Jesus said to go off alone and pray in a closet.
Good advice, in my (and our governement's) opinion.
Yet the
Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a
school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any
sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school.
They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that,
"...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure
system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although
this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not
even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we
acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our
parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this
simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for
unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds;
pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up
considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account
population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum.
After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped
considerably.
The links to these studies, if you
please. Or did you take your local religious leader's word for it?
Or did you just shamelessly copy and paste this whole thing?
There
is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant
view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose?
Well, I vote for the PARENT'S. It's up to them to deem what
is appropriate to teach their children regarding morals. Not the
government. If a parent wants their child to have religious morals (pick a
religion) send them to church, sunday school and parochial school, not public
school where they are to learn reading, writing and
arithmetic.
Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that
through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on
earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all
religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature
has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not
created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential
to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with
not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June
1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among
religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered
a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular
Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a
religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the
same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that
Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools?
The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect,
establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what
our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendm
That's a pretty far reach, trying to make the claim that promoting no relgion in public school is actually promoting a religion called Secular Humanism. I guess if you can believe that hype, the rest is easy, huh?
