Separation of Church and State - Not necessarily

[Liveliner]

<div>I've always heard folks quoting the fraise “Separation of Church and State”. as if it is a ruling that goes both ways. Well I really doubt that has ever been the case except for false use by special interest groups.</div><div>
</div><div>A while back there was a north GA school that had made plans to have their graduation in a church building. One woman protested that a public funded school event could not be held in a church building. I recall someone state that it would require non-believers to enter a religious building for a state affair. That is not a restriction that I can find in the laws.</div><div>
</div><div>What I am getting at is that I have never been able to find in the Constitution anything other than the State is restricted to govern matters of the Church. I have not been able to find anywhere where the Church is restricted in establishing rules for our government. Back in the time period when the Constitution was being written The Church was by far the strongest organization. The church had very much input in the decisions made in the writing of the Constitution. The fear was that that the government would have too much power therefore it was well written that the State can not in any way interfere with the affairs and business of the Church. The involvement of the Church’s influence into the original planning of your laws are all around us. Look on every piece of our money. Look at most all federal building, say the Pledge Of Allegiance or even go to State’s courts. You are asked to swear on the church’s manual before you can participate in the State’s business in court. Why and the leaders of our government guilty of starting every session with a religious prayer. Simple !!! It is all legal under the constitution. There are no restrictions written where it restricts religious influence in Government business. </div><div>
</div><div>Task for you; show me that I am wrong. Find in the Constitution where it says that the church can not influence the operation of our Government. I’ll be waiting ….</div>

 

[Guest]

David this "separation of church and state" is only a fabrication of liberals. Like you said the CONUS only speaks of the government not governing churches. Another thing you will find very easily is that the only separation these hypocrites seek is the separation of state from Judeo/Christian church. Any other reliion or belief is fine with these arrogant, transparent rectums.

 

[swamp]

What church would you choose to influence the government,any or all of them?

 

[Possum]

The reason most people came here was to escape religious persecution. In England, if you did not belong to the Church of England you were considered a second class citizen. In England you could not vote, run for office, and to talk about the church was a crime. The church also had control of the media. Virginia was the first to establish the seperation of church and state in it's constitution, in which when the delagates met during the constitutional convention it was revised and put into the United States constitution to protect individual rights. So, basically the First amendment was put in the constitution to protect people from the church, you know you couldn't be burned at the stake for being a witch, humiliated, hung, or put in jail for doing something the church did not believe in.

 

[Guest]

Possum - 8/26/2010 8:57 AM

The reason most people came here was to escape religious persecution. In England, if you did not belong to the Church of England you were considered a second class citizen. In England you could not vote, run for office, and to talk about the church was a crime. The church also had control of the media. Virginia was the first to establish the seperation of church and state in it's constitution, in which when the delagates met during the constitutional convention it was revised and put into the United States constitution to protect individual rights. So, basically the First amendment was put in the constitution to protect people from the church, you know you couldn't be burned at the stake for being a witch, humiliated, hung, or put in jail for doing something the church did not believe in.

Good post Possum. I agree completely. The first ammendment was NOT put in place to keep people from praying at high school football games.

 

[Possum]

People can pray all they want at football games, our kids pray about three times during a game, sometimes if practice is going bad they will stop and have prayer. Most communities gather around the flag and pray. In the south it is all about God, Family, and Football. Nothing wrong with praying at a football game.

 

[Liveliner]

Possum - 8/26/2010 7:57 AM The reason most people came here was to escape religious persecution. In England, if you did not belong to the Church of England you were considered a second class citizen. In England you could not vote, run for office, and to talk about the church was a crime. The church also had control of the media. Virginia was the first to establish the seperation of church and state in it's constitution, in which when the delagates met during the constitutional convention it was revised and put into the United States constitution to protect individual rights. So, basically the First amendment was put in the constitution to protect people from the church, you know you couldn't be burned at the stake for being a witch, humiliated, hung, or put in jail for doing something the church did not believe in.

</p>

I like that answer. Makes a lot of sense to me. But like Cheez, I think the original purpose of church and state has been taken out of context by special interest groups to suite their own cause.</p>

I have not been able to read anything specific that forbids the church'sinfluenceon the state. The Constitution protects citizens frompersecutionput on them from the old church in the rest of the Constitution. I am certain that those were put into the laws because of what Possum pointed out.</p>

</p>

 

[Guest]

Possum - 8/26/2010 10:03 AM

People can pray all they want at football games, our kids pray about three times during a game, sometimes if practice is going bad they will stop and have prayer. Most communities gather around the flag and pray. In the south it is all about God, Family, and Football. Nothing wrong with praying at a football game.

Absolutely nothing wrong with praying at football games. However, most of the country is not as priviledged as we are in the south.

 

[Bfish]

Liveliner - 8/26/2010 12:45 AM

Find in the Constitution where it says that the church can not influence the operation of our Government.  I’ll be waiting …

Keep waiting. It is not in there. However the opposite does not hold true.

 

[tie1on]

I agree partially with LL and Possum both. The Constitution, pertaining to church and state, was so the country would not be ruled by any one religion or the government to pursicute anyone for their beliefs or non beliefs.

 

[outcaster]

Please tell me where in the Constitution is the word "capitalism" or "free market society" is used, don't bother looking, it's not there. Prayer in school (or anywhere else) is fine..... as long as it is not lead or initiated by a someone employed by, or representing the Gov't. My son has his Brown Middle School band concerts at a large church that donates it's auditorium to the school for such purposes. The minister welcomes everyone, then prays. No-one has, or should have a problem with that, even me. I simply bow my head and am respectful. I would do the same if an "Islamic Center" donated its building for a school event.

 

[Guest]

outcaster - 8/26/2010 12:55 PM

Please tell me where in the Constitution is the word "capitalism" or "free market society" is used, don't bother looking, it's not there. Prayer in school (or anywhere else) is fine..... as long as it is not lead or initiated by a someone employed by, or representing the Gov't. My son has his Brown Middle School band concerts at a large church that donates it's auditorium to the school for such purposes. The minister welcomes everyone, then prays. No-one has, or should have a problem with that, even me. I simply bow my head and am respectful. I would do the same if an "Islamic Center" donated its building for a school event.

All it would take is for one parent to complain or call the ACLU and the school would cave.

 

[outcaster]

cheez - 8/26/2010 1:00 PM

outcaster - 8/26/2010 12:55 PM

Please tell me where in the Constitution is the word "capitalism" or "free market society" is used, don't bother looking, it's not there. Prayer in school (or anywhere else) is fine..... as long as it is not lead or initiated by a someone employed by, or representing the Gov't. My son has his Brown Middle School band concerts at a large church that donates it's auditorium to the school for such purposes. The minister welcomes everyone, then prays. No-one has, or should have a problem with that, even me. I simply bow my head and am respectful. I would do the same if an "Islamic Center" donated its building for a school event.

All it would take is for one parent to complain or call the ACLU and the school would cave.

If I though it was a violation.... I would make the call myself.

 

[Fly Rod Rob]

I am tentatively wading (fishing pun intended) emoLaugh into this murky debate.

I always heard that it was The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

From that I understand, by my interpretation, there is the freedom of religion (if you wish) and freedom from religion (if you wish). I was lead to understand that Congress will not establish a required or state religion.

Possum is correct in his statement that the primary focus of this clause was the Church of England (and, as an Anglican Catholic, allow me to apologize for all past transgressions emoSorry) when this was written as we were trying to gain our independence from England.

However, to muddy the waters further (again, bad pun intended) emoLaugh in 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. This case, which also revived Thomas Jefferson's statement regarding the "wall of separation" between church and state, introduced the position that although religious exercise is generally protected under the First Amendment, this does not prevent the government from passing neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices.

So for example, most states now have a bigamy law and several states including W. VA have a law regarding the handling of poisonous snakes. emoTskTsk

So my point is (after a long diatribe) I view it as freedom of religion, without the establishment of a required religion. It is not the freedom from religion as all are entitled to practice their specific faiths (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Agnostic, Buddhist, etc.) (that don’t involve multiple wives and the handling of poisonous snakes, due to state laws).

-Rob

 

[Liveliner]

Separationof church and state sets the United States aside fromreligious/governments throughout the rest of the world. Modern Western Europe has follow suit in allowing freedoms forreligiousorders. However for centuries in Europe the Monarchs fought the Catholic Church for domain. In the Jewish faith, the revealed law of the scripture constituted the law of Israel. Modern Islamic governments are based on Sharj'ah which rules the land.</p>

The only real issues withseparationof church and state you see most common in this country is the resistance for the government to fund andsponsorreligious teachings in public funded schools. Generally it is involving the Christian faith. I can understand that and can agree with it. However when differing faiths are promoted in schools of select settings at no additionalexpenseto the government there is no conflict with the constitution. That applies to students who choose to openly pray and displayreligiousbanners at school events.</p>

This country is about the diversities, the freedom ofreligionand freedom of expression. If you can not deal with areligionsbanner then you are UnAmerican and you are the exception and you should stay at home with the drapes drawn.</p>

 

[Guest]

outcaster - 8/26/2010 5:19 PM

cheez - 8/26/2010 1:00 PM

outcaster - 8/26/2010 12:55 PM

Please tell me where in the Constitution is the word "capitalism" or "free market society" is used, don't bother looking, it's not there. Prayer in school (or anywhere else) is fine..... as long as it is not lead or initiated by a someone employed by, or representing the Gov't. My son has his Brown Middle School band concerts at a large church that donates it's auditorium to the school for such purposes. The minister welcomes everyone, then prays. No-one has, or should have a problem with that, even me. I simply bow my head and am respectful. I would do the same if an "Islamic Center" donated its building for a school event.

All it would take is for one parent to complain or call the ACLU and the school would cave.

If I though it was a violation.... I would make the call myself.

I have no doubt about that. emoRolleyes