Separation of church and state

The Separation of Church was jousted through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, before any official government document was ratified. Many of the Founders were Christian and many were of a deist persuasion.The origins of the exact phrase "Separation of Church and State," come specifically from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group in Connecticut, known as the Danbury Baptists. These baptists heard rumors that the United States was going to institute a state religion, much like how at that time the state religion in Britain was the Church of England.Since Americans fled for many reasons, some reasons being for religious freedom, the last thing they wanted to do was institute a state religion with provisions of what was the supposed appropriate way to worship God.The Founders saw that it was important for each individual to come to their own conclusions concerning God. In light of this, the ambiguous use of the word "Creator," seen in the Declaration of Independence, alludes to an intentionally open interpretation of a higher power.It was later officially instituted that state and religion should be separate from one another so as to avoid unecessary conflict.Now, the question is what you think about the Separation of Church and State, and if you were president, what you would do about it.

---

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

I just meant hypothetically that if he had no restrictions, what would he do with the Separation of Church and State. That sounds really scary. Since elements of every religion and denomination would want their religion to rule the roost, I trust you can see why that would be a conflict of interest.I happen to like the Separation of Church and State. It's the only way to keep religion free from government intrusion, and keep secular society free from religion. I don't think that any other religion or secularists would be happy about it either.

---

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

I never said that deists were Christians. I said the Framers of the Constitution were generally either Christian or Deists.

---

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

Not all of them, is what Subbie is saying, and he's right. John Adams (2nd President of the United States) was a lifelong abolitionist.Benjamin Franklin, for instance, started one of the first organized abolitionist movements in the US. Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in... abhorrence. -- John Adams I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery -- George Washington Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils." -- Benjamin Franklin Well, he's tranparently wrong, which requires his immediate education on the matter.

---

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

Definitely. Some went the extra mile and carried out plots to assassinate high ranking Nazi officials to save Jews and Germany from a dangerous and fanatical ideology, knowing full well they would assuredly be put to death if caught. Well, you also have to appreciate the timeframe. Hindsight is 20/20. It is a luxury for us in this day and age to mock them, but the world was also a very different time with an entirely set of social mores. Even in spite of this, there were quite a few trailblazers who saw it as an egregious offense against humanity. We can't know exactly what they thought. All we have is their writings, and as best as I can tell, based upon the information, the one's I quoted did not believe that. I understand what you mean, but the fact of the matter is that it happened and no amount of piety is going to change it. I'm just not sure where this is tying in to the current discussion.

---

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

What don't you understand about the democratic process? The majority of people still wanted slavery, because it's all they knew. So for abolitionists, it was an uphill battle trying to convince the masses that it was a horror. Did you miss the conclusion of the Civil War where more Americans died than in any other time in history to make the abolition of slaves a reality? What? So you witnessed their actions??? Taz, you have no other option than to take a strict documentary approach, unless of course time travel is now possible. 1. It wasn't poetry
2. Are you calling them liars?
3. Are you saying they were insincere?

---

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

Marc, buddy, give the pity-party a rest. There are plenty of conservatives on this forum who do quite well for themselves. I am one of them. As much as it would fill you with joy to think that there is this evo-liberal conspiracy at work, it's nothing more than an overactive imagination.The objections people are having is because you are not being clear. You are taking disparate neo-conservative claims and jumbling them all up in to one gigantic bowl of stew. It's like you're taking a segment of Rush Limbaugh's show on Thursday and with a segment of Glenn Beck's Friday broadcast, jumbling it all up, and coming up with a thesis about how liberals are to blame for all the world's ills.It's not making any sense. Please focus on the topic at hand.You made the claim that the Framers never intended on the Separation of Church and State. The readers responded, providing historical facts to refute your claim.The question was asked to you, several times, in light of you thinking that the Separation of Church and State is invalid, what would you like to do about it?Would you like to repeal the Separation of Church and State, and if so, on what grounds?

---

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

So in other words, the Founding Fathers were politicking liars, of which you have no evidence for?

---

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

Are you being serious? Are you saying that it's a fact that all politicians, by the sole virtue of them being politicians, are destined to not ever tell the truth? It's literally impossible that John Adams never owned slaves, and was disturbed by the practice of slave ownership? That is impossible?Your video is completely irrelevant. That's an anecdote 200 years after-the-fact. It bears no relevance to the current discussion.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

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

And the United State's implementation started long before any Soviet version of separation of church and state. So what does that tell you? What relevance does it have to America's separation of church and state, which was implemented long before there ever was a Soviet empire? You are using a non-sequitur to make an invalid point. And that's all it means! That is a complete fabrication. Since 1947 the separation of church and state had lessened considerably, so that even on our forms of currency it reads "In God We Trust." Slowly it has been shifting back to where it needs to be, per the Constitution of the United States. Who says we know more than the Founders did?

quote:

---

Would you like to repeal the Separation of Church and State, and if so, on what grounds?

---

Then you have quite a bit of reading. There is no, nor should there be, any cooperative relationship between church and state. Should there be any cooperative relationship between mosques and the state? No? Then what basis do you have and why do you hate the Constitution?Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

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

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

Courts ARE a part of secular society, so in a sense that should be the only arbiter. People's religious views do play a part in how one views morality, but we shouldn't be using the bible as a template. I trust that you wouldn't appreciate living under Shari'a law, and I assume you wouldn't like living under the Halacha either.All you seem to care about is your own views on morality as being the absolute standard. What if the shoe was on the other foot, Marc? I don't think you would like it. But it is a part of the 1st Amendment. You seem hung up on one word, but the concept is incontrovertibly clear, especially when viewing other documents written by the Framers. I have posted the evidence as clear as day that refutes everything you've said. Curiously though, you've neglected to respond.You want to talk about revisionism, but how about the fact that the phrase "In God We Trust" on our coinage and c-notes was implemented in the 1950's, but the 1st Amendment, along with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, along with Thomas Paine's book Common Sense, and a myriad of other personal memoirs make it painfully clear that the 1st Amendment was intended to be there from the beginning.

---

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

double postEdited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

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