Page 3 of 67 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 661
Thanks Tree318Thanks

Thread: Separation of church and state

  1. #21
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,017
    Thanks
    2977

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    Nope, you're wrong.It is not a liberal premise.

    The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

    “ "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 & State."[1] ”
    Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644,

    “ "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." ”
    Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
    It was a letter written to the church by Jefferson to keep a denomination from being a state religion. It was meant to keep government from managing church business, which is what Liberals are trying to get government to do today with the FFRF

  2. #22
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    31,105
    Thanks
    26305

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    It was a letter written to the church by Jefferson to keep a denomination from being a state religion. It was meant to keep government from managing church business, which is what Liberals are trying to get government to do today with the FFRF
    The wall of separation between church and state was meant to keep government from managing the business of churches, yes, but it was ALSO meant to keep churches from improperly intruding into the business of government. It is, in other words, a two-way wall. I once read a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a reader such as yourself claiming that Jefferson meant for the wall to be a ONE-DIMENSIONAL wall, only keeping government out of church business, but not the other way around. But the phrase 'one dimensional' did not even exist in the 18th century.
    Thanks from Hollywood, Friday13 and Panzareta

  3. #23
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,017
    Thanks
    2977

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    The phrase isn't in the first amendment, but that's where the concept is derived from. The first amendment prohibits the government from making laws with respect to an establishment of religion, and courts have interpreted that to prohibit undue entanglements between church and state.... and rightly so. If we keep a healthy wall between the two, they can both function well. But once we allow them to get intertwined, we're going to be fighting political fights over what ought to be religious matters.
    Already fighting over issues. The FFRF constantly hunts for people exercising their freedoms and hires lawyers to shut them down. They use the misinterpreted version of the Separation Clause to do it.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    32,108
    Thanks
    8217

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    The wall of separation between church and state was meant to keep government from managing the business of churches, yes, but it was ALSO meant to keep churches from improperly intruding into the business of government. It is, in other words, a two-way wall. I once read a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a reader such as yourself claiming that Jefferson meant for the wall to be a ONE-DIMENSIONAL wall, only keeping government out of church business, but not the other way around. But the phrase 'one dimensional' did not even exist in the 18th century.
    no it was not to prevent churches from having a voice.. it was to prevent Churches from becoming the national Religion. eg Church of England. Our founders wanted people to practice their faith without interference from Government, but did not want a Pope of the US.
    Thanks from aboutenough

  5. #25
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,017
    Thanks
    2977

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    The wall of separation between church and state was meant to keep government from managing the business of churches, yes, but it was ALSO meant to keep churches from improperly intruding into the business of government. It is, in other words, a two-way wall. I once read a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a reader such as yourself claiming that Jefferson meant for the wall to be a ONE-DIMENSIONAL wall, only keeping government out of church business, but not the other way around. But the phrase 'one dimensional' did not even exist in the 18th century.
    The letter was not law. The courts have made up those interpretations to make law

  6. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,052
    Thanks
    4611

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The argument of Separartion of Church and State has been based on a false premise propagated by Liberals mostly . The government was not to impede on the churches free exercise, but the atheist goal is to do just that. The fear that religion is about to become a Theocracy is also false and they use that to further limit free exercise
    I tend to agree with you about this.

    This wall between church and state is mostly an invention by activists masquerading as judges. But oddly this is one wall the liberal democrats seem to love.

    Government officials should be able freely exercise and express their religion (just so long as it doesn't break any laws) the same as anyone else should be able to. This idea that Government Officials for example can't hang a picture of Jesus up in their office is utterly absurd.
    Thanks from aboutenough

  7. #27
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    31,105
    Thanks
    26305

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The letter was not law. The courts have made up those interpretations to make law
    What the letter was, was Thomas Jefferson explaining the INTENT of the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson was certainly one of our more important Founders. Third President. Author of the Declaration of Independence. On Mt. Rushmore. Funny thing is, most conservatives are always DEMANDING that we should interpret the Constitution according to the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founders. But here, ON THIS ONE ISSUE, they say NO!!! On this ONE issue, of what the First Amendment really means, they DON'T want to read Jefferson's letter, and go by what it says.

    Just plain weird, right?

    And the courts that have interpreted the First Amendment in accordance with Jefferson's letter? Well, that would include the SUPREME Court of the United States of America. The Court that was set up by the Founding Fathers to be, well, the Supreme Court of the land, to be the final interpreter of the Constitution.

    But yet you reject THAT, too.

    You guys just want to squat and take a giant DUMP on the Constitution, seems like, to me.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Panzareta

  8. #28
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    27,824
    Thanks
    8717

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    It was a letter written to the church by Jefferson to keep a denomination from being a state religion. It was meant to keep government from managing church business, which is what Liberals are trying to get government to do today with the FFRF
    No.

    No one has ever said that a Christian can't practice Christianity here. That's just nonsense. And your misrepresentation of Jefferson's letter is ridiculous. The state not endorsing your faith, is not impeding your practice of your faith at all. If you suggest that your faith requires you to force others to adhere to it, then at that point... where the targets of your proselytism no longer have a choice... any "religion" doing something like that has become a cult and should be banned for sure.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Leo2

  9. #29
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    27,052
    Thanks
    4611

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    What the letter was, was Thomas Jefferson explaining the INTENT of the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson was certainly one of our more important Founders. Third President. Author of the Declaration of Independence. On Mt. Rushmore. Funny thing is, most conservatives are always DEMANDING that we should interpret the Constitution according to the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founders. But here, ON THIS ONE ISSUE, they say NO!!! On this ONE issue, of what the First Amendment really means, they DON'T want to read Jefferson's letter, and go by what it says.

    Just plain weird, right?

    And the courts that have interpreted the First Amendment in accordance with Jefferson's letter? Well, that would include the SUPREME Court of the United States of America. The Court that was set up by the Founding Fathers to be, well, the Supreme Court of the land, to be the final interpreter of the Constitution.

    But yet you reject THAT, too.

    You guys just want to squat and take a giant DUMP on the Constitution, seems like, to me.
    Thomas Jefferson also opposed the idea that the judicial branch should be the final arbiter of the constitution.

    He believed it would lead to judicial despotism.

    So it's quite ironic to watch you use Thomas Jefferson to try and defend this idea that the founding fathers set up the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of the constitution. He's probably turning over in his grave right now.

  10. #30
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    31,105
    Thanks
    26305

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Thomas Jefferson also opposed the idea that the judicial branch should be the final arbiter of the constitution.

    He believed it would lead to judicial despotism.

    So it's quite ironic to watch you use Thomas Jefferson to try and defend this idea that the founding fathers set up the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of the constitution. He's probably turning over in his grave right now.
    And yet he would heartily approve of the position they have taken on the separation of church and state. That was an issue even more important to him than his views on judicial powers.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

Page 3 of 67 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Separation of church and state.
    By Rev. Hellh0und in forum Current Events
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 11th November 2012, 07:03 AM
  2. Separation of church and state
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 1st November 2009, 04:22 PM
  3. Separation of Church and State
    By Tick in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 19th September 2008, 02:24 AM
  4. Separation of church and state
    By Jack Flash in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 10th April 2008, 11:19 AM
  5. Separation of Church and State
    By Jack Flash in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 30th January 2008, 02:18 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed