Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Separation of church and state
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1 of 313 (572500)
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


There are typical assertions about American history that seem to regularly pop up in creation vs evolution debates. The following are a few recent examples here. Though history doesn’t seem to be a main topic of interest in these particular forums, I think this is something that needs to be addressed, and hope this will fit an appropriate sub-forum here. Those examples (by several different posters);
Message 124
jar writes:
The US Constitution is NOT Biblically based in any way or form.
So far no one has been able to show ANYTHING in the US Constitution that is Biblically based.
Message 455
DC85 writes:
Do you mean like how the Texas School board and numerous other truly uneducated keep pushing the falsehood that the founding fathers were all Christian and that the United States was founded on Christianity even though evidence shows it to be very Different?
Message 466
Theodoric writes:
Oh please provide evidence for this. Do you realize who were the biggest supporters of separation of church and state in the formation of this country?
I thought not.
The religious that is who. They had seen through the experience of europe what happens to minority churches when one belief becomes one with the government. Do you have any evidence that the prevailing view was that a church and the government should be one entity? Any?
Message 449
subbie writes:
I'm fairly confident that I know more about separation of church and state than you do since it was about one half of my ConLaw II class in law school. So I'm not even going to ask you to defend that little bit of hysteria.
Separation of church and state had nothing to do with US foundings. It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights. James Madison is generally considered to be the most prominent founder of the U.S. His appointee to the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, made these observations about religion and government in 1833;
quote:
The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; --- these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience.
And
quote:
Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as it is not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
Justice Joseph Story on Church and State (1833)
Here is a listing of the religions of the US founders. Not one of them was an atheist.
Separation of church and state was an important part of a constitution, but it wasn’t the US constitution.
quote:
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
Soviet Union - Constitution
About 100 years ago, President Woodrow Wilson said this;
quote:
"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.... America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture."
A few decades after he said that, in 1947, an activist US Supreme Court, packed by FDR during the 1930’s, separated church and state for the first time in the US.
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.
Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.
Edited by marc9000, : Added links and names to opening quotes
Edited by AdminPD, : Direct links to post.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 08-06-2010 8:39 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 6 by subbie, posted 08-06-2010 11:09 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 7 by DC85, posted 08-07-2010 1:10 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2010 2:24 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2010 4:20 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 08-07-2010 4:33 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2010 6:06 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 08-07-2010 10:38 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2010 10:52 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 08-07-2010 11:23 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2010 11:41 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2010 11:51 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2010 9:26 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 313 (572509)
08-06-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


Need Links
Before I promote this, I would like to see links to the quotes you have used from other posters. This allows readers to read the quote in context. Also provide the name of the poster since you are quoting them.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 5:26 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3 of 313 (572598)
08-06-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
08-06-2010 8:39 AM


Re: Need Links
Understood. Edited as requested. I'm not sure how to link single messages from other threads - hopefully the way I did it will suffice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 08-06-2010 8:39 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 313 (572640)
08-06-2010 9:23 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Separation of church and state thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 313 (572642)
08-06-2010 9:25 PM


And the problem with things evolving is...?

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

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 6 of 313 (572658)
08-06-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


So the fact is, separation of church and state evolved in the US — it was not part of US foundings.
True. There are two key elements in the evolution of church and state relations in this country. The first was the enactment of the First Amendment which states, in part,
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
There are two separate clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The second key is the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is important because, beginning with Gitlow v New York, the Supreme Court began the process now called incorporation. Under the doctrine of incorporation, most of the limitations of the federal government's powers in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
You alluded to Everson v. Board of Education. It's rather humorous that you refer to that as an activist court that separated church and state for the first time, when in fact Everson held that reimbursing parents of children going to both public and private schools for transportation expenses was not unconstitutional. But why should you let the facts get in the way of a good name-calling?
Moreover, Everson was not the first Court to apply the Religion Clauses to the states. That application goes back at least as far as Murdock v. Pennsylvania.
Any more misconceptions I can clear up for you?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 7 of 313 (572682)
08-07-2010 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


I've had this conversation many times and it annoys me when people distort the founding father's views.
Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were Deists their writings clearly reflect it.
I realize this is wikipedia but it does give you an overview of the views of Jefferson. If you like I can get other sources easily this however is all in one place.
Religious views of Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia
These strike me as important. Would you not agree?
n 1779 he proposed "The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom," which was adopted in 1786. Its goal was complete separation of church and state; it declared the opinions of men to be beyond the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. He asserted that the mind is not subject to coercion, that civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, and that the opinions of men are not the concern of civil government. This became one of the American charters of freedom.
quote:
Jefferson:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and State
quote:
Jefferson:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg
Edited by DC85, : No reason given.
Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 8 of 313 (572685)
08-07-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


Separation of church and state had nothing to do with US foundings. It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights. James Madison is generally considered to be the most prominent founder of the U.S. His appointee to the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, made these observations about religion and government in 1833 ...
If we want to find out about Madison, why not look at what he said instead of what Story said?
Now in his so-called "Detached Memoranda" he wrote that "separation between Religion & Govt" is "strongly guarded" in the Constitution. And he wrote that bit of the Constitution. Don't you think he knew what it meant?
You will see, if you follow the link, that he goes on to condemn, as violations of this principle:
(a) "Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts";
(b) The office of the Congressional Chaplain, which he describes as "a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles";
(c) The provision of chaplains to the Army and Navy --- which is further than I would go.
And again, in a letter to Robert Walsh:
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State. --- James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh, March, 2 1819. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President of The United States in Four Volumes Published by the Order of Congress, J.B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia 1865, Volume III, pp 121-126.
There's your separation of Church and State, then, in so many words.
Here is a listing of the religions of the US founders. Not one of them was an atheist.
No-one said they were.
But unless you're going to pretend that only atheists favor the separation of church and state, this is hardly relevant.
Separation of church and state was an important part of a constitution, but it wasn’t the US constitution.
Try telling that to James Madison and watch him spin in his grave.
About 100 years ago, President Woodrow Wilson said this;
What he said doesn't bear on the constitutional issue, does it? It is one thing to wish America to be a Christian nation --- presumably all Christians wish this --- and quite another to wish to violate the separation of Church and State.
Let's have a look at some quotes from Presidents that are relevant.
James Madison we have already covered.
Here's that much-quoted passage from Thomas Jefferson on the "wall of separation":
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 and State. ---Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802
Here's Andrew Jackson declining to call for a national day of prayer:
While I concur with the Synod in the efficacy of prayer, and in the hope that our country may be preserved from the attacks of pestilence "and that the judgments now abroad in the earth may be sanctified to the nations," I am constrained to decline the designation of any period or mode as proper for the public manifestation of this reliance. I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government. --- Andrew Jackson, Correspondence 4:447, 1832
Here's James K. Polk's diary:
Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State. --- James K. Polk, diary entry, Oct. 14, 1846
Here's Ulysses S. Grant addressing Congress:
Declare church and state forever separate and distinct, but each free within their proper spheres. --- Ulysses S. Grant, Seventh "State of the Union" Speech, 1875
Here's James Garfield accepting the Presidential nomination:
The separation of the Church and the State in everything relating to taxation should be absolute. --- James Garfield, letter accepting presidential nomination, July 12, 1880
Here's Teddy Roosevelt:
I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools. --- Theodore Roosevelt, Address, New York, October 12, 1915
I have confined myself to quotations prior to 1947, a date that you seem to find important, so I won't bother you with Presidents such as Kennedy and Johnson and Carter.
A few decades after he said that, in 1947, an activist US Supreme Court, packed by FDR during the 1930’s, separated church and state for the first time in the US.
Again, I would point out that James Madison thought they were separated by the passage of the Bill of Rights, which was antecedent to 1947.
So the fact is, separation of church and state evolved in the US — it was not part of US foundings.
Unless you listen to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but what would they know about it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 9 of 313 (572691)
08-07-2010 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


Joseph Story
Since you brought him up ...
It is true that Story wrote what you attribute to him. I am not so sure that it bears the interpretation that you wish to place on it. If you look at your own link, just after where you break off you quotation, he continues:
It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether say free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.
It seems clear that he is saying that the US has such a government, and that this is the thing that is "as yet new in the history of the world". This is confirmed three paragraphs down, where he writes:
It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject.
Furthermore, in the previous chapter of his Commentaries, where he discusses religious tests, he wrote:
The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. --- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Vol III, Page 705-707. Da Capo Press Reprints in American Constitutional and Legal History
So not only is he less authoritative than Madison, but also he doesn't seem to think what you think he thinks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 10 of 313 (572692)
08-07-2010 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


Instead of quoting Madison's appointee, why not quote James Madison himself? You must already know what you would find.
A few years before Madison drafted the First Amendment, his friends in Virginia asked for his help in opposing a state bill that would allocate tax money to the support of "teachers of Christian Religion"; ie, direct government support of religion. His response was to write a pamphlet, A Memorial and Remonstrance which raised so much public opposition to the bill that the Legislature dropped it and instead voted in Thomas Jefferson's The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.
quote:
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
Right there, 26 years before Jefferson's letter, a few years before Madison drafted the First Amendment, we have Madison describing the Wall of Separation. So much for your fiction. Certainly you remember the rise of the Religious Right in the early 1980's. You should also remember their harping on the Founders' "original intent." Well, we see here that original intent. A Wall of Separation, a Great Barrier, that neither Religion nor Government can be allowed to breach, lest we descend into tyranny.
BTW, in the preceding paragraph, we have:
quote:
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
You know, something has been puzzling me ever since the Religious Right started spewing their propaganda in the 80's. We get democracy not from the Bible, but rather from the pagan Greeks. And our republican form of government we get from the pagan Romans. So could you please explain to us exactly how those things are supposed to have originated in Christianity? Where exactly in the Bible does it describe democracy? Where exactly in the Bible does it describe a bicameral representative government, one of which is specifically called "The Senate"? Chapter and verse, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 11 of 313 (572697)
08-07-2010 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


marc9000 writes:
quote:
Separation of church and state had nothing to do with US foundings.
After all, it isn't like there is a clause in the Constitution that guarantees free exercise of religion and prohibits government from establishing religion.
Wait...there is? Damn.
quote:
It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights.
I see we're playing the "laundry list" game, pretending as if the founding documents were a checklist and if you don't find the specifc words in a specific sequence within the text, then that means there is no Constitutional right for same.
Of course, by this logic, you don't have a right to breathe, eat, sleep, have sex, have children, read books, watch a sunset, fall in love, etc., etc. for nowhere are those things to be found in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
See, the problem with the "laundry list" mentality is that nobody actually believes it. The only time it gets invoked is when the person doesn't like a judicial interpretation of the Constitution. It's akin to the epithet, "activist judge": The only thing it means is that the person whining doesn't like the decision.
Of course, the Declaration of Independence doesn't really have anything to do with the way the country works. The foundational principles of our country are only to be found in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is, essentially, a geometry proof about why the US needs to be independent of the British Crown. This was, after all, the Enlightenment when the clockwork universe was the dominant paradigm and most of the founders were Deists, believing in a god that didn't really take any active part in the workings of the universe that was created.
quote:
Separation of church and state was an important part of a constitution, but it wasn’t the US constitution.
And here we see the "laundry list" mentality coming up again. Indeed, you won't find the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. That doesn't mean the right isn't there. You won't "pursuit of happiness" anywhere in the Constitution, either, but that doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't protect it.
After all, why does the "laundry list" mentality fail?
Because the Constitution explicitly denies such an interpretation. It appears someone has completely ignored the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words (damn! There I go sticking words into the Constitution as if they were part of the actual text, just like "separation of church and state"!) just because you don't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution (because it is not "enumerated") doesn't mean you don't have a right to it ("shall not be construed to deny or disparage others").
There are plenty of rights that you do have that are not mentioned by the Constitution. In one of the many cliches we hopefully should have learned from grade school, one of the complaints about having a Bill of Rights was the very idea of enumerating rights would seem to indicate that anything not mentioned was prohibited. The joke was that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting a man from sleeping on his right side." Many of the founders didn't want such black-and-white mentality to be enshrined in the law for precisely the reaction you are having: People claiming that if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is prohibited.
Remember, the US system was born out of the British system of Common Law. There was no universal listing of the legal code as we understand it. The very job of the judge was to pay attention to the general principles of the law and figure out a way to apply it to a specific case. This system does not cotton to specificities because it relies upon the judge to understand that every case is unique and what works in one case will not work for another.
Now, the US system is not the same as British system. We do have more standardized laws that result in a more uniform system of justice across the land. However, we still understand that not everything can be covered, not everything can be enumerated, and thus we cannot hold ourselves slaves to specific words as if they will provide every answer to every question. We need to be able to have a system that can work with things that were never conceived of before.
For example: Abortion. Abortion was legal at the time of the founders up to the moment of quickening. So of course you're not going to find any statement in the Constitution concerning abortion. It was already legal. Why on earth put something in the Constitution about a practice everybody already understood to be legal? "Congress shall make no law prohibiting a man from sleeping on his right side."
That's the point of the Ninth Amendment: There's no way in hell that the Constitution will ever be able to enumerate every right that you have and prohibit every action you shouldn't be allowed to do. So it isn't going to try. It will put forward guiding principles and specifically and directly point out that you have rights it hasn't mentioned and they are protected by the Constitution.
quote:
So the fact is, separation of church and state evolved in the US — it was not part of US foundings
Well, you're forgetting the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797:
Article 11
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
[emphasis added]
So it would seem that one of the founding documents of the country. You see, Article VI of the Constitution talks specifically about treaties and how they affect US law:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[emphasis added]
So it would seem that one of the founding documents of our country explicity and directly states that the US is not a "Christian nation."
quote:
The scientific community really should stop implying that it was.
What does the scientific community have to do with any of this? This is basic American History. I see you did a marvelous job of quote mining, but I have to wonder: Did you get any of your information from first-hand sources or did you just do a web search, land upon web sites of a particular political bent, and cut-and-paste their out-of-context quotes? Given that one of your quotes is from the Belcher Foundation, I highly suspect that you didn't actually approach this subject with a clear head but rather went looking for material that supported your preconceived notions of how things are supposed to be.
Next time, turn off the computer, go to the library, and read the actual documents for yourself rather than relying on what someone else tells you they say.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 12 of 313 (572727)
08-07-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


I believe others here have made it sufficiently clear that the founders did want to separate church and state. But let us suppose that you are right. Suppose the country was indeed founded on christian principles. Why couldn't it change to include more freedom for more people?
Even after the 14th admendment was ratified, it took several more legislations to make native Americans citizens. Why? Because the founders never intended for anyone but white men to be citizens. Even white women didn't have true citizenship.
I've never understood this entire founding-fathers-were-christian-therefore-we-must-be-a-christian-nation mentality. I could just as easily claim that since the founding fathers had slaves we should reinstitute slavery in this country. And since the founding fathers didn't want native Americans or Chinese immigrants to be citizens, we should revoke all their citizenships.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2010 11:21 AM Taz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 313 (572731)
08-07-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


1947?
A few decades after he said that, in 1947, an activist US Supreme Court, packed by FDR during the 1930’s, separated church and state for the first time in the US.
You have not explained where 1947 comes into it.
Let me refer you to the US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Reynolds v. United States. As you will see from the link, they quote from Jefferson's address to the Danbury Baptists:
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 and State.
They conclude from this:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
That was in 1878, marc. 69 years before whatever it is you're talking about, the Supreme Court was using Jefferson's formula about the "wall of separation between church and State" to decide what the First Amendment meant. FDR wouldn't even be born until four years later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 313 (572744)
08-07-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
08-07-2010 10:38 AM


I've never understood this entire founding-fathers-were-christian-therefore-we-must-be-a-christian-nation mentality. I could just as easily claim that since the founding fathers had slaves we should reinstitute slavery in this country. And since the founding fathers didn't want native Americans or Chinese immigrants to be citizens, we should revoke all their citizenships.
People often talk as though they revere the Founding Father in the wrong way.
They revere them like they were prophets from God, who ought to have the last word on any subject.
But they ought to be admired like we admire great scientists or inventors --- like Darwin or Edison --- because they had the first word, because they had the insight and daring to conceive and do something new --- something which of course in the very nature of such projects subsequent thinkers have improved on.
I mention Darwin not just to bait marc9000, but because it occurred to me as I was writing this that people with this sort of authoritarian mindset find it very hard to conceive that this is, in fact, how the rest of us admire great thinkers of the past --- as the greatest minds of their day introducing innovations and insights that still retain some value; not as prophets staggering down from Mount Sinai under the weight of eternal commandments written in stone.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 08-07-2010 10:38 AM Taz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 15 of 313 (572746)
08-07-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-06-2010 8:09 AM


So 'splain this Lucy
Based upon your argument are you saying that id something is not explicitly stated in exact words in the constitution then the concept does not exist at all in US jurisprudence?
The scientific community really should stop implying that it was.
Ooooo, evil science.
In more recent years, the foremost Baptist witness in the United States for the protection of separation of church and state has been the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. An education and advocacy group in Washington, D.C., the Baptist Joint Committee is affiliated with fourteen Baptist bodies collectively representing over 10 million Baptists in the United States.
Source
Gee, it seems that it isn't only atheist or scientists but Christians also that advocate for the separation of church and state.
And of course there is the supreme law of the land that states
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Treaty of Tripoli

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 8:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2010 11:58 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024