|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Separation of church and state | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The exclusion of religion from "politics" is impossible; that is unless your definition of religion is gobbledygook. No comment.
You might also consider studying historical figures, such as Patrick Henry, and learn why he wanted a Bill of Rights: this might lead you to a clearer understanding of what the 1st amendment's original intent was. He may have wanted a Bill of Rights, but he didn't want the Bill of Rights as written by Madison, and didn't support it. Which tells us that Patrick Henry's "original intent" for the Bill was different from that of the guy who actually wrote it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Is it ? If he had felt that there were no problems with the Bible he wouldn't have wanted to write his own highly-edited version. Nor would he have claimed that the teachings he attributed to Jesus stood out like "diamonds in a dunghill". (Letter to Adams quote: Lets compare your description with the one from Wikipedia
The Jefferson Bible begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels, genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from the Jefferson Bible.
So no miracles and Jesus a man, not God Incarnate - and no resurrection. Hardly the work of an orthodox Christian. And the editing goes rather beyond creating a harmonised account, does it not ? Removing the "dung" that had accumulated around the teachings of Jesus. And why would publication be so important ? He wrote the book, he showed it to friends. It seems that he was not quite content with the version he had, but that is all. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Two significant untruths in one small package. And I've lived in the South/Southwest for most of the last 50+ years. There's no "war on Christianity" here. And you're in Kentucky? Don't start fibbin', now. Your source People For The American Way is a left wing smear machine, that endorses every extreme liberal political position and candidate it possibly can. People for the socialist way would be a much more accurate description of them, but they couldn’t be as successful as they are if they didn’t deceive from the very beginning. I don’t see significance in whether or not Jefferson’s famous phrase first occurred in a speech in 1801, or in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. There are bound to be disagreements in the context of 200 year old speeches by historians of today. They didn’t exactly have sophisticated recording equipment in every shirt pocket back then. The context of speeches was probably largely passed on by word-of-mouth through the following generations, and naturally things change according to what those who are interested want them to be. It doesn’t automatically mean Barton is wrong if he makes an unpopular claim. Maybe he had word-of-mouth information that can’t be proven on paper. Most of the quote-mining by both sides is insignificant, IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
That is why, for example, it appears on the Bill of Rights Institute's list of landmark Supreme Court Cases. That's why academic publishers Pearson Prentice Hall have it on their list of landmark cases. Everson appears on both of those lists as well.
This is why this legal scholar who is trying to prove that the Reynolds decision was wrong still calls it a landmark case. He’s not trying to prove it wrong on the separation issue however, because the case was not about separation to anywhere near the extent that Everson was.
This is why "Common Sense Americanism" (a nakedly right-wing site, by the way, you'd like them) has it on their list of landmark cases. Everson is on there too. It says;
quote: Reynolds did nothing anywhere near that significant concerning separation of church and state.
quote: The first, eh? Sounds landmarky to me. Landmarky about bigamy and polygamy, yes — landmarky about separation, sorry, but no.
And this is why it was cited by Black --- you don't suppose, do you, that he had the details of every sixty-nine-year-old court case at his fingertips? There’s no doubt he had the details of every US Supreme court case in the history of the country at his fingertips. Probably an army of assistants, to find him every reference to the phrase he was looking for, separation of church and state. Common sense tells me it was his KKK dislike of Catholics that had him zeroing in on that phrase much more than was school transportation in New Jersey.
You, for weird reasons of your own, may not want to use the word "landmark" to decribe it, but I don't see how you can try to deny the significance of Reynolds when it was the (legal) fons et origo of the separation doctrine as it appeared in Everson. If mention of separation is important in Everson then a fortiori it is important in Reynolds. A mention of it doesn’t automatically mean it was central to the case. It was not central in Reynolds, it was central in Everson. Let’s look at its mention in both cases, in complete context. First, Reynolds;
quote: The summary of that case is as follows;
quote: Reynolds was not about a newly established separation, it was about separation up to a point, about the limits of separation. That if there is too much separation, too much freedom to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order, that religion (a personal worldview) could become superior to the law of the land. Now for Everson;
quote: That's directly about separation, it's the phrase (without the last sentence) that's been cited dozens of times in following court cases from 1947 to today.
And to deny its very existence, as you did in the post to which I was replying, is downright dishonest. I didn’t deny its existence, I denied its significance to the subject of separation of church and state. Everson is infinitely more significant, because for the first time, it applied separation to the states.
And Reynolds established the significant new legal concept (new qua legal concept, that is) that the Establishment Clause meant a wall of separation between church and state. The very concept that Black cited in Everson. The very concept that this thread is about. A google search turns up 4050 uses of the phrase "citing Reynolds v. United States". And 514 for "citing Everson v. Board of Education". How many of those 4050 uses were referencing separation of church and state? Almost none? How many of the 514 were referencing separation of church and state, by an individual state? Almost all of them?
Your idea of what is "very minor" seems somewhat subjective. They decided that the Establishment Clause means that there is a wall of separation between church and state. I don't see how it can be "minor" when they decided it but a big deal when Hugo Black quoted it. It was minor in Reynolds because Reynolds wasn’t directly about separation, it was about bigamy and polygamy. Everson was directly about separation, from beginning to end, from the accusation at the beginning (public funds for transportation to religious schools) to the ending reference to the high and impregnable wall. And it applied a state separation of church and state for the first time. That’s what made it a big deal when Hugo Black quoted it, and why subsequent courts made a big deal out of Black's words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
marc9000 writes:
Hmm, what was it that you were just saying about "smear machine"?
People for the socialist way would be a much more accurate description of them, but they couldn’t be as successful as they are if they didn’t deceive from the very beginning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Simply trying to have a go at atheists does nothing to refute the fact that Jefferson saw organised religion as a threat to liberty. Since he did have a Bible, however edited, it shows that religion isn’t what he saw as a threat, he saw the threat from certain people who practiced it, those who became its authorities. There was no such thing as organized atheism/humanism that there is today. That threat to liberty is equal.
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. That's another thread, one that I would like to see.
marc9000 writes: It was a very minor detail compared to my position as detailed mainly in the opening post - that separation of church and state in the US has changed, has evolved. So it is all right for you to invent "minor" details to try to bolster your case ? If it's so "minor" why bother with it at all ? These types of discussions aren’t always about a systematic process of a presentation of facts, and then a simple conclusion of one view being absolutely right and the other view being absolutely wrong. It’s a fact that the phrase separation of church and state has appeared periodically in US history and in Soviet history. If you want to use years/time periods as proof that there’s absolutely no way that there could have been any informational ties between those two countries over periods of centuries, that’s your opinion. If I want to take note of how separation of church and state is favored by communism, and also favored by the extreme left political position in the US and suspect that there is/was at least some informational ties over long periods of time, that’s my opinion. We can't really take it any further than that.
It seems quite clear to me. Promotion amounts to establishment when it is being done by the Government - except when all religious viewpoints are given equal treatment. That seems to be the view of Jefferson and Madison. Look, we all know that what you really want is for the Government to give Christianity special, favourable treatment. The question is, how can you see that as anything less than an establishment ? It isn’t establishment, it is balance, balance to the atheism/humanism that is already established.
I don't see the U.S. government carrying out campaigns against religion. In fact so far as I can tell there's a much bigger problem with Christians seeking to use the government to give their religion special privileges. The religion of humanism does campaign against religion, by the US government, in public schools. The Religion of Humanism
quote: The whole thing is a good read, I won’t c/p it all of course, but the following paragraph from further down sums it up very well.
quote: You may say that this isn’t an establishment of Humanism, but you can’t say it’s not a promotion of Humanism. More promotion than Christianity is permitted to have (since 1947)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
You have misrepresented the import of Torcaso v. Watkins.
In Torcaso v. Watkins the court ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. In a footnote, Hugo Black said, ""Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." That is far from what your quote claims: "In 1961 the United States Supreme Court declared Humanism to be a RELIGION (case of Torcasco vs. Watkins)" First, that does not comprise a "ruling" by the court. Second, Black was referring to a specific, organized movement of the time, Secular Humanism, formed to contrast with Religious Humanism, not "humanism" as quoted. The real perversity in your post, of course, is that the actual ruling reaffirmed keeping religion out of government. Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
You do realize that the only mention of "Humanism" in TORCASO V. WATKINS, 367 U. S. 488 (1961) is a mention in one of the footnotes. Also TORCASO V. WATKINS, 367 U. S. 488 (1961) has NOTHING to do with anything except the Establishment Clause and says that states cannot require someone declare a belief in God.
Your linkie is nothing but nutjob rantings, misrepresentation and innuendo. BUT, even then it is irrelevant. The fact is that all that was involved in that case was the attempt by the state of Maryland to make a specific belief a test of whether or not someone could hold a political job. It is one of the better Supreme Court Decisions when it comes to preserving religious rights. It also has NOTHING to do with the origin of separation of church and state. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Everson appears on both of those lists as well. Of course. This is because it was also a landmark case, for reasons that you have apparently not bothered to research.
He’s not trying to prove it wrong on the separation issue however, because the case was not about separation to anywhere near the extent that Everson was. It was about whether the government could make illegal a practice not only permitted but enjoined by the Mormon church. That is kind of a First Amendment issue, don't you think?
Everson is on there too. Of course. This is because it was also a landmark case, for reasons that you have apparently not bothered to research even though it's made clear by the quote you just quoted.
Reynolds did nothing anywhere near that significant concerning separation of church and state. Apart from establishing the legal precedent that that's what the First Amendment means.
Landmarky about bigamy and polygamy, yes — landmarky about separation, sorry, but no. Apart from introducing the principle that the First Amendment meant separation.
Common sense tells me it was his KKK dislike of Catholics that had him zeroing in on that phrase much more than was school transportation in New Jersey. Interesting use of the phrase "common sense". Back in the real world, as we may have mentioned once or twice, Black decided that New Jersey could subsidize transport to sectarian schools, 99% of which were Catholic. Here's a Jesuit (who served as amicus cuirae in the Everson case) hailing the Everson decision under the headline The Court Upholds Religious Freedom. Here's how he describes Black's ruling:
The work of a learned, incisive-minded, conscientious jurist, who has honestly faced a complicated set of issues, regarded the concrete situation in which they arise, and given a decision in the true spirit of American constitutional law. While you have produced no evidence that Black hated Catholics, it seems that Catholics just loved him.
Reynolds was not about a newly established separation ... Reynolds was when the principle that the First Amendment meant separation was legally established. Newly.
How many of those 4050 uses were referencing separation of church and state? Almost none? How many of the 514 were referencing separation of church and state, by an individual state? Almost all of them? More google results: "citing Reynolds v United States" separation : 1,800 hits."citing Everson v Board of Education" separation: 499 hits. Oh, and while we're at it: "citing Reynolds v United States" polygamy: 301 hits.
I didn’t deny its existence ... Yes you did. You wrote that the court in Everson "decided separation of church and state needed to be etched in a court decision for the first time in US history". That was Reynolds.
I denied its significance to the subject of separation of church and state. And how very wrong you were.
Everson is infinitely more significant, because for the first time, it applied separation to the states. Ah, at last you begin to realize the significance of Everson. It did not introduce the principle of separation, it was jut the first application of the incorporation doctrine to that principle.
It was minor in Reynolds because Reynolds wasn’t directly about separation, it was about bigamy and polygamy. That's like saying Everson wasn't directly about separation, it was about bus fares. The constitutional issue in Reynolds was what the First Amendment meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your source People For The American Way is a left wing smear machine, that endorses every extreme liberal political position and candidate it possibly can. People for the socialist way would be a much more accurate description of them, but they couldn’t be as successful as they are if they didn’t deceive from the very beginning. And yet on this particular issue they seem to be in agreement with the Baptist Joint Committee On Religious Liberty.
Maybe he had word-of-mouth information that can’t be proven on paper. About what Jefferson said in 1802?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
It doesn’t automatically mean Barton is wrong if he makes an unpopular claim. Maybe he had word-of-mouth information that can’t be proven on paper. Did he go back in time? Or do you think he was privy to some sort of unknown oral history? Just when I think your arguments cannot be any lamer you pull out something new. Barton needs to supply the same thing you need to supply. Evidence. You both supply no evidence. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Did he go back in time? Maybe he's a Communist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Maybe he had word-of-mouth information that can’t be proven on paper. I'm sure Barton hangs out with 200-year-old Virginians on a regular basis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: As usual you try to evade the issue,. Firstly, as I said, Jefferson clearly saw organised religion as a threat to liberty. The quote says as much. Whether organised atheism or humanism are equal threats to liberty remains to be seen.
quote: Perhaps you would like to compare the U.S. to post-revolutionary Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban ?
quote: In that you seem free to include "facts" that you have invented, I agree. The question is why if it is so unimportant you need to invent anything at all. Why not simply leave the point out ? Especially as the entire point was just a "guilt-by-association" smear.
quote: And how is this significant ?
quote: However, your point was not that there was SOME sort of linkage. Your point was all part of your attempt to demonise the 1947 Everson ruling - which you claim to be the watershed in Church/State matters (another invention) - by linking it to the Soviet Union. And the fact is that THAT linkage was a total fiction. And, of course, the fact that you take a cavalier attitude to the facts is itself relevant to this discussion. We know that we cannot trust your assertions because you don't care if they are true or not. That's why we need evidence.
quote: Since you have yet to demonstrate any such "establishment" of atheism or humanism the question of balance does not arise. Even if it did you cannot achieve balance by giving special privileges to just ONE religion.
quote: You will need to demonstrate that it does. A link to a crazy rant is not evidence. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : Tidy up a little.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
You have misrepresented the import of Torcaso v. Watkins. In Torcaso v. Watkins the court ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. In a footnote, Hugo Black said, ""Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." And in Everson, Black said; "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." That wasn't a "footnote"? It had about as much relevance to New Jersey busing as Blacks reference to Secular Humanism did to religious tests for public office. Your point is taken though - obviously that footnote means absolutely nothing. Secular humanism is established in today's US government, despite that footnote's assertion that it's a religion.
That is far from what your quote claims: "In 1961 the United States Supreme Court declared Humanism to be a RELIGION (case of Torcasco vs. Watkins)" It declared Humanism to be a religion to a comparable extent that a New Jersey busing case declared a wall of separation to be high and impregnable. And it declared Humanism to be a religion to a far greater extent than did the 1878 Reynolds case about bigamy declared church and state to be separate.
First, that does not comprise a "ruling" by the court. Second, Black was referring to a specific, organized movement of the time, Secular Humanism, formed to contrast with Religious Humanism, not "humanism" as quoted. What's the difference between secular Humanism and Religious Humanism? The writers of the Humanist Manifestos don't seem to make a distinction between them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024