Separation of Church & State

Where Does it Come From

from JoeUser Forums
Did anyone watch Larry King the other night with James Dobson, Founder of Focus on the Family as his guest? Well I guess James gave his buddy Larry a history lesson on the separation of church and state. I was kind of surprised at what Larry didn't know mostly because he should have done his HW by this time. This issue has been going on now for quite some time now. The courts are clogged with all sorts of cases surrounding the separation of church and state debacle.

How many people don't know that you cannot find the Separation of Church and State in the Consitution? Don't bother checking the bill of rights either. It's not there. Here's how part of the conversation went......

KING: But we have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Beg your pardon?
KING: We have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Who says?
KING: You don't believe in separation of church and state?
DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it's not. That is not in the Constitution.
KING: It's in the Bill of Rights.
DOBSON: It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by (Thomas) Jefferson to a friend. That's the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.
What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.
KING: I'm going to check my history.

Many of us continue to believe the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in the U.S. Constitution, illustrating the need for better history books, or is it the teachers that need to be replaced?

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had this to say:

The words 'separation of church and state' are not found in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation or any document of our history," he said. "The First Amendment to our Constitution basically embodies a concept of separation -- meaning that the state should stay out of the affairs of the church and of the relationship that men have with their God."

In modern law, he said, many use "separation of church and state" with the intent to separate God, moral values and Christian principles from the state.

"It means none of that," Moore said. "The way people use 'separation of church and state' is not historically or legally accurate. What it does mean is that the state can't interfere with the church and can't interfere with our mode of worship and our articles of faith. And that's what 'separation of church and state' means."

I've got a library of quotes from Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, who signed the Declaration, and see no logical connection between what they said in the past and what we believe they meant today. You can make a dead man say anything and if repeated enough the people will believe it. For crying out loud the Constitution gave recognition to God. It's only been in the last few decades that God has been removed from the public square.

Are we basing the separation of church and state on bad history as the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist believed? I think so.

What do you teach your children?


Link

"
5,870 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
For crying out loud the Constitution gave recognition to God

Where does it mention God, specifically, in the Constitution?

IG
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find that the people who normally preach the hardest for government to lay off letting them put the ten commandments in court houses, etc., are the people who would make the biggest stink if the roles were reversed with another religion. I used to challenge people who wanted their kids' teachers to lead them in prayer how they'd feel next year when their child had a Hindu teacher.

I take a middle-of-the-road view. I don't like having the ten commandments in government owned buildings, I don't think it should be on money or in the pledge, or in any government act. That said, I think Democracy is of the most importance, and if people feel differently than me, they ought to have their due representation.

I would just urge people to reflect seriously on what they'd feel if the roles were reversed. If your child came home from school saying they'd been taking part in Hindu rituals, or if your money had "In the Prophet We Trust" on it, you might have an inkling of what non-Christians feel when they deal with this. You might even decide that government taking a neutral tone is in your interest, given you might not always be in the majority.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The constitution says that:

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


While this may not seem like much, the Supreme Court has decided in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) that:


""The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.


When the Supreme Court rules something, its ruling is law, and can only be reversed by an amendment. So while it is not in the constitution, a Seperation of Church an State does in fact exist in this country. It appears James Dobson needs to check up on his history.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Separation of church and state."

To successfully separate the church and state, we would need all of our politicians to be atheist. "Church," i.e. faith/religion, is as much of politics as a football is in the NFL. I mean, just looking at the Supreme Court, 56% is Roman Catholic. Congress itself has a large christian representation.

If we look at it, in that they (founding fathers) wanted to make sure it didnt become like England, where the church "advised" politics - still, you would need the same thing

Link

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."

How did they define state and federal government?


The way I look at it is that those who essentially are against religion, really need to deal with it. Stomping their feet, whining and moaning simply will not work. Because it is deeply rooted in our nation, and it, and religious folks, are not going to go down without a fight. It will just create il will, and discord.

I suggest compromise. How, i don't know. ~L
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
To successfully separate the church and state, we would need all of our politicians to be atheist


Not necessarily so. I believe the founding fathers wanted each public servant to be influenced or ruled by their personal religious convictions. They just did not want another person to be ruled my your beliefs. If a senator is raised Catholic, it is only logical that thier decisions would be influence by that belief, but that does not give him the right to pass a law that infringes on the Jewish fait or lifestyle of another person.

IG
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not necessarily so. I believe the founding fathers wanted each public servant to be influenced or ruled by their personal religious convictions. They just did not want another person to be ruled my your beliefs. If a senator is raised Catholic, it is only logical that thier decisions would be influence by that belief, but that does not give him the right to pass a law that infringes on the Jewish fait or lifestyle of another person.


Well, that conflicts with those they represent. I mean, just because the voters want the politician to do one thing, doesnt mean that all of the voters do. i.e voting no, nay, etc...

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't know it wasn't in some of the original documents of our country.

Guess another supreme court could change it then couldn't they?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Baker has a good point.  But then I would say that Not establishing a religion is not the same as preventing people from practiciing theirs.  SCOTUS thinks otherwise.  There is nothing in the constitution that says our leaders cannot practice their religion, only that they cannot enforce it on us.  But today, the ACLU has decided it is the same.

No it is not. We elect our leaders.  But they are supposed to be us, and in that, they have their beliefs.  Minnesota just elected a Muslim.  Must we now prevent him from doing his thrice daily obligation to Mecca as that is forcing his religion on us?

Given that scenario (and I am glad he was elected), the ACLU must say no way.  I say butt out clowns!  He is not converting me, just professing his own beliefs!

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Ahmadinejad(Anonymous User)

From America:

Buzz off.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just a comment on the Ten Commandments in public places. Do you know how they got there? In most cases, it was not via a public or governmental agency. It was by way of the movie industry.

"DeMille’s The Ten Commandments came to movie theaters and drive-ins in 1956. To help with promotion, DeMille got behind an idea to place etched granite slabs of the commandments in parks, state-capital lawns, and courthouses around the country. Counts vary, but it’s estimated that “4,000 Ten Commandment monuments are displayed in U.S. cities."

Source: Link

We have already covered the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was cited. James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights also wrote, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Further documentation can be found in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison. So Dobson is clearly wrong in his assertion.

There are many places that do not practice separation of Church and State. Iran comes to mind right off the bat.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Suck my dick, you cock sucker.


That's rather homoerotic, Dr Guy. I'm not sure the church would approve.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Uh, is that you doc? I would think you would look at who the author of this article is and have a little more respect. We get a little 'blue' from time to time, but I've always been kind of proud that we find the level of the room when we visit other people's blogs. I wouldn't expect KFC of all people to appreciate that level of discourse.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

I wouldn't expect KFC of all people to appreciate that level of discourse.

You are right.  My appologies to KFC, and to the rest of JU.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy, my level of respect for you, already high, has just soared.

You sir, are a real mensch.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
No need to apologize to me, doc. It didn't bother me. You know KFC, though, and it's her article. Kudos for doing the right thing, most wouldn't.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wouldn't expect KFC of all people to appreciate that level of discourse.


Thanks Baker, what you said is true.

You are right. My appologies to KFC, and to the rest of JU.


apology accepted. You know I luv ya anyway Doc!! Thanks for changing your message.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
As soon as the Government tries to make one religion the "state religion" I will complain, till then I say to those whiney little babies" S. u.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

apology accepted. You know I luv ya anyway Doc!! Thanks for changing your message.

Thank you.  I have no excuse for it.  Only anger.  I appreciate Baker bringing me to task in the light of day. And your forgiveness.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
As soon as the Government tries to make one religion the "state religion" I will complain,


this kind of brings to mind to me the quote by Thomas Jefferson

"When the government fears the people, then there's Liberty, but when the people fear the government then there's Tyranny."


So which is closer to what we have today?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
So which is closer to what we have today?


I'd say the latter. Maybe not extremely, or readily identifiable, but by your quote...yep, the latter.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not fear the governement itself, I fear the whole system who seems to have gotten out of control...