What Happened To Separation of Church and State?

Remove all ads!

Big B, I'm not sure what you're saying. It looks like your saying anyone who disagrees with you is a puppet and can't think for themselves. Isn't it possible for people to disagree with you AND have their own reasoned opinions for doing so? If anything, I'd say the puppets are those who support an obviously unconstitutional resolution and those who passed it -- it's a political ploy. If I've misinterpreted what you said I appologize in advance.

*Still waiting for one of the supporters of the resolution to make an argument about how it's constitutional. Still waiting. Waiting.

 

Just to make it known, I'm not in support of it only because people make a fuss over it. Should the wording be changed to "Do what you feel is right on Thanksgiving?" I don't know. Why was this being done anyway. You may be right Laches, it could be some ploy for whatever reason.

I'm not saying that people that automatically disagree with me are puppets. I am saying if something has no effect on you, why be so worried about it. Why lash out? Why the instinct? Where did that come from?

 

And I'm saying it DOES have an affect on people and you don't understand the depth of that affect because you are part of the majority who agrees with it. Really sit back and think and answer this honestly, if Congress unconstitutionally passed a resolution proclaiming there was no god and all prayer should cease, even though that would "have no affect" on people don't you think the outcry would make cause this one to sound like silence? Can you honestly say that you would take your own advice and shrug you shoulders and say "oh, i don't care" in that instance? Let me suggest that if you can honestly say that you can, you are an amazingly rare person.

I'll throw down the gauntlet again: someone argue that this is constitutional.

How the same people who argue on these boards against gun control relying on the grounds that it is unconstitutional can turn around here and ignore the fact that this IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL baffles me. Why is violating the Constitution suddenly okay? It's not.

I don't give a flying fig even if this doesn't harm anyone anywhere. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I can't believe people want to ignore this fact.

 

"And I'm saying it DOES have an affect on people and you don't understand the depth of that affect because you are part of the majority who agrees with it. Really sit back and think and answer this honestly, if Congress unconstitutionally passed a resolution proclaiming there was no god and all prayer should cease, even though that would "have no affect" on people don't you think the outcry would make cause this one to sound like silence? Can you honestly say that you would take your own advice and shrug you shoulders and say "oh, i don't care" in that instance? Let me suggest that if you can honestly say that you can, you are an amazingly rare person."

If you're hypothetical situation did come true, I would not be rioting in Washington against it. That doesn't mean I agree with it, that just means I don't see that as the way to go about ammending the situation. I wouldn't care to the extent that I know I can still pray and disregard that law. I'd pay it no mind. No law will stop me from praying. It may stop me from praying in public, out loud at certain functions, but it cannot stop what goes on in my head. Instead of focusing my efforts on rioting and arguing about the law I would focus on those who are appalled by it and would like to learn more about Christianity.

So in this light I see this those who disagree with this as just ignoring it. Focus their efforts on doing what they've always done. This doesn't change that. So then, again you have to ask yourself, what's the real motivation? Why not go on and forget about it? If you don't want to pray, you don't have to, no big deal. There's no way it could or could not be enforced. Why then does it become a deal? Who or what is really the drive behind this? That's what you have to ask yourself. I believe there's only one being in this world that is truly threatened by prayer. He is the one that plays off the passions and prejudices of people to meet his goals. Don't be deceived.

[ November 20, 2002, 20:28: Message edited by: Big B ]

 

So, anyone who opposes the resolution is a puppet of Satan? Okay, thanks for clearing that up. At least I'm in good company with the likes of Jefferson and company.

What's that? Oh, sorry, I have to run, a meeting with Satan at 3:00.

 

It doesn't have to be that way. Don't keep falling into the trap of making it all one big joke. If you do, you can be assured you won't be laughing for eternity.

Laches, you're a smart guy. Be reasonable. Don't just laugh it off.

 

@Claron

I think you should be thankfull to the Indians instead of God, oh wait the lead bullets were the presents

 

As a staunch Christian, it feels odd to make this stand. The resolution seems to me like a violation of the Constitution. Sorry, folks. But the plain fact is, when our government starts making laws pushing religion, it is not only violating the constitution, but bringing us back into the very situation that we came here to avoid in the first place. It was England's state established and supported Church that persecuted the Puritans and eventually drove them to relocate in the new world. Many of the Dutch that came over originally were also trying to escape persecution by their supposedly Christian government. The fact is, you don't make Christians by the edge of the sword. If it's not free will, it's not Christianity. There's far too much that gets labeled as Christianity that couldn't be farther from it.

The problem with the broad label "separation of church and state" is that people suddenly start thinking that religion can't have anything to do with government and therefore politicians should not be religious -- or allow their beliefs to affect the issues. This is absolute nonsense -- most of the laws passed in the original constitution were made by Christians who were not at all afraid to cite Scripture in support of their viewpoints. It is allowing government to have dominion over religious aspects that is clearly against the Constitution, not the other way around.

Oh, and by the way --- God is a word that means "one who is worshipped". So it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean; seems silly, if you are religious, to get in a huff about that.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on that. However, it would be interesting to hear someone explain why Thanksgiving, Easter, and Christmas managed to get passed as national holidays if this is construed as favoring one religion over another. Laches, thoughts?

 

gee shralp, I was going for something more concise than, "what happened to congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I suppose, given the amount of ignorance found online, your response is to be expected, as I gave no indication I knew the exact wording. But try not to be an ass about it next time. Please? Pretty please?

[ November 21, 2002, 00:25: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

**seems silly, if you are religious, to get in a huff about that.**

Well, you know, I had to get into a huff about something. All the other good huffs were taken.

 

AMaster, my comment wasn't directed at you in particular.

It just causes so many headaches when people start to talk about "separation of church and state" without realizing what the Constitution actually says. And people do that all the time.

 

They talk about seperation of church and state for good reason though Shralp, it's part of our constitutional jurisprudence.

Here is a bit of a more concise explanation about why the resolution actually does cause a harm Big B, it's in the religious/school context but is easily analagous:

The proposed resolution sends a similar message that others are outsiders, and not full members of the political community.

Capstone, I think the secular aspects of Thanksgiving are pretty easy to see. The other two are admittedly tough and I think can easily be seen as violating the First Amendment. Here is an article where the government explains why it recognizes Christmas as a holiday, it is because of secular reasons. In short, Christmas in the U.S. has over the years become increasingly secular to the point where there is enough of a secular aspect to it as to no entail excessive entanglement of religion and state:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=8091

That said, I think that view is a massive stretch, from the article I think the reality is summed up here:

To argue on behalf of easter is an even greater stretch in my opinion. I couldn't find a case talking about Easter but I did find one justifying the celebration of Good Friday. They say the state has a secular reason for the holiday. It's a load of crap, but that's what they say, here is the case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/7th/983058.html

 

Well, Thanksgiving may have secular aspects, but it's clear its roots were certainly not. Here is a link describing the initiation of Thanksgiving as a national holiday. Sounds rather religious in nature, if not downright Christian. /me shudders.

 

ah. Well, then, I apologize for both misunderstanding and overreacting.

 

Big B, it's not about being threatened by prayer, it's about the fact that this concurrent resolution clearly violates the First Amendment:

THIS RESOLUTION IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. FORGET YOUR RELIGIOUS STANCE ON THE AFTERLIFE. FORGET THE DEVIL. I UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS ON PRAYER, BUT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Source: http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html

P.S. No hard feelings, etc. I just feel that any resolution passed, no matter whom it affects needs to be rescinded if it violates the code of law we all adhere to.

[ November 22, 2002, 03:16: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

 

This is drifting off topic I'm afraid. Capstone, I understand Thanksgiving origin. I do believe though that it is easier to see the secular aspects of Thanksgiving as opposed to Christmas or Easter. In short, the argument that Thanksgiving is a federally recognized holiday for secular reasons (today) is not as much of a stretch as the argument that Christmas and Easter are.

Also, are we arguing or were you genuinely curious about how the courts justify it? If we're arguing, I didn't realize it. If you were curious, well, that's how they justify it.

 

I agree with Slim. Although, if this law is passed, it's a mystery to me how they would enforce it. Would the "prayer police" come to your house and check?
Isn't thanksgiving a national holiday anyway?

BTW, every piece of money in the US, whether paper or coin, has the words "In God We Trust" printed on it. So our monetary system is also a violation of our first amendment rights.

 

The slogan on our money has been litigated as well. There are a lot of examples where there may be violations of the First Amendment. Swearing in the President with a Bible. Prayer to start off Congress. The pledge of allegiance etc.

 

I got yelled at by the political correctness police (aka my ex-roommates Diane and Constance) the last time I tried to explain Thanksgiving as a holiday thanking God for a land free from religious and other persecution. I invited a refugee from Afghanistan to come celebrate Thanksgiving in our house with us and Diane and Constance shouted me down while I tried to say Grace, saying it was a harvest festival and not to be smug about European theft of aboriginal lands.

[ November 22, 2002, 20:28: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

U.S. case law is irrefutably screwed up about interpretations of the Establishment Clause. While the idea of separation of church and state has been drummed into our jurisprudence, any intelligent reading of the Bill of Rights will show that it shouldn't be.

What seems clear is the Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. Maryland should be able to establish its own religion (and it did at one point). And Congress should be able to make other laws regarding religion (and it does). The clause was inserted for one reason: to avoid having a national religion.

One can argue that the idea of separation is beneficial to state, church, and the nation (but you'd be wrong ), but those arguments certainly don't follow from the clause itself, especially if you take into consideration what the authors of the Constitution themselves wrote about it.

[ November 25, 2002, 16:26: Message edited by: Shralp ]