Separation of church and state

He used the word states, I didn’t realize the word state has now become as slippery as the word evolution or abiogenesis. When he said those where religion is given a major role in government, I took that as a reference to the many conservative US states where outspoken atheists/ humanists/homosexuals don’t make it to any significant political office, unlike states like New York or California. There are significant variations in how different state governments apply traditional values and morals.

It attacks religion when it puts forward the idea that naturalism is all there is. That humans are merely evolved animals and that all their studies and problem solving can be solved only on a naturalistic basis. Because you never did it in todays educational system automatically means it's ludicrous? Did you notice that Dr Adequate did it before I did, by claiming Reynolds was more "landmarky" than was Everson? I think Everson was, because it applied separation of church and state to the states. Without using Everson as a reference? Several reasons, 1) it's needed to balance the governments current promotion of naturalism. 2) It's contained in the judicial writings of the courts in the 19th century, many of them while some/most of the founders were still alive to see them. And 3) because just about all evidence points to the fact that the founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state to be applied to the several states, enforced by the federal government. As Joseph Story said in 1833;

quote:

---

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

---

Justice Joseph Story on Church and State (1833)

Yes, personal opinions. Dawkins has them, Stenger has them. Are conservatives not permitted to have them? I referenced 1947, and I was talking about the topic of the thread. If you didn't recognize Everson from that, you don't know much about the topic. You're masterful with your dances, but that doesn't make them any less hilarious. You're in no position to correct anyone on Everson if you didn't even know the date it took place.

It must be incredibly debilitating to go through life thinking that words can only have one meaning. That's not "religion having a major role in government."Why not just admit you didn't understand what he was saying, and let it go? There is no state in the United States that applies a standard of "no gays or atheists in public office, because it upsets Christians" to eligibility for elected office, mostly because that's completely unconstitutional.Why keep digging yourself in this hole? Why not just admit you misunderstood? It's not like you're going to "lose points" or something.

We have already discussed Torcaso v. Watkins with him, obviously without effect, plus there is also Cecil Bothwell in Asheville, NC.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Look, I'm completely mystified by your obsession over how "landmarky" Everson is. What difference does it make? Everson is the law of the land. All nine Justices agreed to the interpretation of the First Amendment adopted previously by the Reynolds Court. What's your point? First, please show me evidence of governmental promotion of naturalism. Sounds like another right wing myth to me. Perhaps you have the idea that if the government isn't promoting religion, that amounts to promoting naturalism under some kind of "if you're not with us you're against us" argument. In any event, I'm not aware of any governmental promotion of naturalism, so please enlighten me.As far as the writings of 19th century jurists go, irrelevant. You may have heard of the Fourteenth Amendment. That has been construed as making many of the rights from the Bills of Rights applicable against the states. That's why the Reynolds Court's holding about the meaning of the First Amendment applies to the states. Thus, the Constitution has changed since those people wrote what they did, and their thoughts are as relevant today as their thoughts about slavery or women's suffrage.BTW, you didn't follow up on your points about Gierke v. Blotzer or Roberts v. Madison. Does that mean you are abandoning that line of argument? If so, then we're still waiting for an example of voluntary prayer being unconstitutional.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

But what is being attacked is not his personal opinions but his scholarship. And I accurately guessed that you were lying about Everson given only the fact that you were lying about a Supreme Court decision that took place in 1947. As anyone can see by reading this thread. To you it may seem whimsical, even humorous, that someone should point out undeniable facts. We obviously move in very different circles. I was in a position to correct you about Everson because of knowing more about it than you. As anyone can see by reading this thread.Now, would you like to stop whining about me and resume whining about the constitution? I realize that you're on a hiding to nothing on that subject too, but at least it's on topic.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are, of course, not telling the truth.I have used the word "landmarky" once, in post 140.I did not claim that Reynolds was "more "landmarky" than Everson" --- as everyone reading this thread can see.When you tell falsehoods about Supreme Court Justices long dead, you at least have the assurance that none of them is going to post on these forums pointing out your compulsive untruthfulness. Therefore I suggest that you should stop whining and lying about me and resume whining and lying about them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Is your evidence that they pushed back that the word separation is not in the Constitution? That's it? Because that word doesn't exist some of them pushed back on the idea?All well and good on Joseph Story but you obviously had and probably have no clue about him until I mentioned he was born in 1779. Because you claimed that he would have pushed back on separation at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution.Lets see what you wrote. my bold
Message 182So my comment to that was It doesn't make a rats ass that some website lists him as a founder. He wasn't even 10 at the time you claim he would have been pushing back on separation of church and state. I don't think he had a vote. I don't think he was there. Know your subject, know your sources and confirm your information before you make such over reaching claims. It will keep you from looking a bit silly. But if you want to continue this line of argument go for it.I see you had nothing to say about the other founders I questioned. Ok show us the cryptic way religion and the christian god are entwined in the Constitution. Look at Message 121 The source is the same as you used for Joseph Story. You want to take that source as a valid source for Joseph Story, so it should be a valid source on the "Sundays" issue. You see they actually have done research. You never did reply to that message to provide any argument or evidence. Seems to be your typical MO.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The simplicity or complexity of a religion (a functionally useless statement, btw) has nothing to do with it. Separation of Church and State simply means that the government will not endorse or show preferential treatment to any religion, nor will it interfere with the affairs of any religion. That's it, that's all it means. It doesn't need to. The term Separation of Church and State comes from the writings of Thomas Jefferson. The Amendment is still crystal clear. Why would the word "separation" have to be in the Constitution?"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."Pretty simple, no?So what exactly is your beef with the First Amendment? You do know this amendment protects your rights, don't you?

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

There is no state in the United States that applies a standard of "no gays or atheists in public office, because it upsets Christians" to eligibility for elected office, mostly because that's completely unconstitutional.

---

It's not quite that simple.Six states prohibit atheists from holding public office: Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Now, Torcaso v. Watkins was a 1961 case in which the Supreme Court declared that atheists have the right to hold public office, so these laws are technically unconstitutional, but they are still on the books. Cecil Bothwell was elected to the Asheville, NC city council. He did not hide his atheism. However, there is a lawsuit against him attempting to bar him from taking office due to his atheism. Sadly, H. K. Edgerton, former president of the Asheville NAACP, is part of the suit to stop him from taking office.Alas, the SCOTUS sidestepped the issue as to whether Maryland's requirement of signing a declaration of belief in god in order to hold office to be in violation of Article VI of the Constitution ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.") They were finding it unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds and directly stated they weren't going to address Article VI issues.In some sense, this is good as their reasoning strongly points out marc9000's error: The First Amendment imposes freedom from religion just as much as freedom of religion. From the decision:

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

You are (still, again) missing the essential point in the whole "naturalism" vs. "spiritualism/theism/dogmatism" dichotomy. In a pluralistic society, where every individual is given the right to decide on their own whether they want to accept/adopt any sort of spiritualism/theism/dogmatism (and if so, which flavor they want), governance needs to be based solely on the things that reasonable people can agree on, regardless of their choice (or lack) of faith.In order to establish a common basis for agreement on issues of governance, two things are needed: (1) a set of rules that are established and maintained with the consent of the governed, and (2) an objective (not dogmatic, not spiritual, not theistic) basis of evidence for substantiating relevant claims.If the sole basis for a given claim (e.g. homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, or adulterers should be stoned to death) is a specific religious doctrine held only by a certain religious group (e.g. because that's how they interpret their chosen religious text), it would be unjust to enforce that claim as a law.Why? Because there are other citizens, with equal rights, who won't accept that interpretation of the text -- and indeed won't even accept the text in any interpretation -- as binding or relevant to them. For the citizens who are not in that specific religious group, such a law would have no objective grounds for enforcement that all reasonable people could agree on as valid.I'm not saying that all laws must be founded on matters of objective evidence (though I think it would be tremendous progress for us as a nation if this were the case). It's sufficient to establish the general consent of the governed, while (crucially) observing the necessary constraints imposed by the Bill of Rights to guarantee that minorities are not crushed.But in order to get common consent in a pluralistic society, proposals and claims have to show common sense. Certainly, there is plenty of overlap between theistic people and non-theistic people in terms of what constitutes common sense. But if they happen to differ on matters where evidence can actually resolve the conflict, it has to be the evidence that decides the issue, not faith or dogma.When objective evidence, common sense, the general consensus, and/or the Bill of Rights happen to be in conflict with a particular religious belief that you choose to hold, you might say that government is "attacking" your religion, but really the core of the problem here is your choice of religion, and your reason(s) for choosing it.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Because multiple posters here are making an issue of it, and implying that it’s 100% my fault/problem, and 0% his fault/problem. Of course I realize I’ll never get the last word on it, so I’d like to make my position on it as clear as possible. It may or may not be unconstitutional for it to be applied by state law, but it’s not unconstitutional for the voters to make sure it’s that way. Do you not believe that there are significant variations in political trends from state to state? Variations in debt and social experimentation? Variations in natural recourses and effective uses of them? Variations in environmental laws? Because in an issue of misunderstanding, there are two parties involved, and understandor, and an understandee. In this case, the understandor called foreign countries states, and expected me to know he was not referring to individual states in the US. He now has 2 or 3 helpers implying that his communicating skills are perfecto, and I’m fully to blame for misunderstanding him. Let’s look again at the entire paragraph where he referred to states;

quote:

---

Simply trying to have a go at atheists does nothing to refute the fact that Jefferson saw organised religion as a threat to liberty. And I will note that secular states seem to have a much better hold on liberty than those where religion is given a major role in government.

---

He refers to Jefferson in the first sentence, then in the very next sentence, says And I will note that secular states.
Would it have been completely wrong for him to refer to them as other secular nations, or secular countries? (that Jefferson didn’t have a thing to do with?)When a group of like minded posters are desperately covering for each other, is it really considered possible for one or all of them to dig holes? Hole digging is actually subjective, isn’t it?

My point is in the last line of the opening post of this thread;

quote:

---

So the fact is, separation of church and state evolved in the US — it was not part of US foundings. The scientific community really should stop implying that it was.

---

It’s promoted in science education. Naturalism, humanism, atheism, however it may be described, is considered the only guide for scientific studies, and has branched out to include virtually all modern thought in every field. That everything changes and is changeable. That humans are capable of knowing everything. This kind of thinking can lead to the kind of tyranny that the founders were most united against, that was clearly the most important thing for their government to prevent. Scientific claims that life arose naturally from non-life from primordial soup billions of years ago, and that global warming is controllable by humans, are only two of many. Not to the topic of this thread. Separation of church and state were not part of US foundings, or US history of the first 150 years to anywhere near the extent that they have been for the last 60 years. There doesn't seem to be much information on the net about many court cases. I don't have a dozen other posters helping me out. If you don't believe that voluntary prayer has been under legal attack much more since after 1947 than before 1947, if you don't believe the scientific community's crusade against religion isn't stronger today than ever before, it's just something we have to agree to disagree on.

So what?Do you think we're keeping track of "points"? We're mostly keeping track of how ridiculous you're willing to make yourself look to avoid admitting error. Voters can, of course, vote according to any means they wish, but that's not what we were talking about. Because that's what they're called. Nobody had trouble with the context switch but you. Why not just admit your error and stop looking ridiculous? I don't believe that there are any US states that would not be characterized as "secular", no. Regardless of their variations in other characteristics all states in the United States are secular in government. Why do you think Jefferson "didn't have a thing to do with" the governments of other states? Perhaps you're not aware of Jefferson's enormous contributions to French democracy and the degree to which he's celebrated by French society?Talk about revisionism - but don't you have to know history before you can attempt to revise it?