Separation of church and state

What are those reasons it's a landmark, other than the fact that it applied separation of church and state to the individual states? Are there any other things about it that make it a landmark? The word "separation" does not appear in the first amendment. The US founders were very good with the English language, and using it in a concise way. If they wanted the first amendment to mean "separation", the word "separation" would have been used. What do "google hits" have to do with anything? Are they an indicator that millions of modern day atheists are searching to find ways to distance their beloved separation of church and state from where it actually originated, that is, with Everson? Ah no, I've been trying to convince you of it for several days, with you kicking and screaming all the way. I guess you've finally decided to quit embarrassing yourself about it, by the only way you know how - to accuse me of denying what YOU have been denying. Applied in subsequent court cases all over the place, since it then started applying it to state matters. It's not cited in dozens of newer cases because of bus fares, it's cited because of separation. It referenced the Jefferson Danbury letter, then added words like "high" and "impregnable". Reynolds only referenced the letter, it didn't add words to the phrase "separation of church and state".

Are you claiming it was a footnote? Huh?Edited by Omnivorous, : hit wrong button

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

Yes, and you have failed to meet their standard.And if they wanted the authority of the Christian God intermixed with out constitutional republic, they'd have said so.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

I think that's the most important thing. And the relevance of that statement to what I wrote would be ... ? But the evidence is that that is what James Madison thought it meant. Your fantasies about what he would have done is trumped by the evidence of what he actually did do. They have quite a lot to do with the question that you asked, which was about the 4050 google hits to which I'd referred you in my previous post. No. Partly because "millions of modern day atheists" do not control the internet, and partly because the separation doctrine did not begin with Everson, as even you yourself must by now know perfectly well. You are, of course, not telling the truth, and everyone who's been reading this thread knows it.Really, after page on page of you saying stuff like this ... ... and this ... ... and me saying stuff like this ... ... and this ... ... you want to convince people that you have dragged me "kicking and screaming" round to your idea about the real significance of Everson?And then you have the face to tell this lie ... The traditional example of chutzpah is that of a man who, having killed both his parents, appeals for clemency on the grounds that he is an orphan. But with the utter shamelessness of your lie you may have taken brazen cheek one stage further. Hey, look, you said something true!Are you feeling quite well? And, as I have shown, Reynolds is also cited about six times more often with reference to separation than polygamy. And if we had been discussing when a judge first used the word "high" to describe Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state", that observation might be relevant.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I would expect any good historian to get his information as close to the source as possible. To me, that would involve seeking out descendants/aquaintances of a person I was interested in. In the case of presidents of the US, many things they are heard to say are profound to anyone who hears them. Barrack ~whose ass~ Obama will be remembered for many things he says, though some not as vividly as others. Barton, as a young man, could have sought out elderly people who would have had some ties to Jefferson, and chances are excellent that some things he said could have been passed down through the generations.I'm not a historian, and I know of an Abraham Lincoln quote that almost no one else does. It's not an important one, but I know for sure that he said it. He said "he a mighty likely looking litter feller". How do I know he said that? Because he said it to my great-grandfather, who was a boy that was introduced to Lincoln at a small civil war battlefield speech by his father (who owned the farm the battlefield was on) I have the newspaper clipping of an interview of my great-grandfather when he was 88 years old, and he recalled what was said to him by Lincoln. If my house burns tonight and the newspaper clipping is lost, it won't diminish my certainty that he said it.So if there's an oral history that's unknown to you, that doesn't necessarily mean it's unknown to everyone. If you don't trust historians and their methods, that's your prerogative. I hesitate to trust scientists who tell me what happened millions of years ago, so it all works out in making a diverse world.

And you think that Barton discovered this historical goldmine but didn't mention it anywhere ever, leaving you to infer its existence from your premise that he's a good historian? --- an inference which you then use to defend that very premise.A good historian gives his sources.Besides which, according to the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Freedom, Barton now claims to get his nonsense about a "one-way wall" from the letter to the Danbury Baptists. In which case Barton's not just concealing his authentic source, but lying about it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

He saw it as a threat not because it was a religion, but because it was a worldview, a term we use today to indicate a set of beliefs about how the world works, a "framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it." Any worldview can be a threat to liberty, a crystal ball isn't needed. No no, why the switch? I'm not interested in Iran or Afghanistan nearly as much as what many see as a decline in the values and stability in the US. I'd like to see a thread on how much more financially secure and free liberal states like New York and California are compared to more religious ones like Tennessee or Texas. I don't expect you to start that thread anytime soon. My many opponents have invented a lot of things in this thread. That "Everson" is insignificant in the subject of separation of church and state is one of many. It speaks volumes that when one of my opponents invents something, no one else but me calls him on it. Opposing my position is far more important than finding truth, isn't it? It is significant because those who favor it (communists in Russia, liberals in the US) show the same disdain for liberty and limited government. Links to "Baptist" websites that hate Barton and embrace militant atheist historians aren't impressive to me. That's not a fact. If the Soviet constitution that separated church and state was dated in 1936, Black could have noticed it in 1947.So if Everson wasn't the watershed in separation of church and state, what was? Reynolds? Do you just blindly accept what Dr Adequate asserts, or do you think for yourself? So because I referenced it, you didn't even bother to read it? That link referenced Dr Sidney Simon. Do you not believe he exists? Do you not believe he made this statement;

quote:

---

I always bootlegged the values stuff under other titles. I was assigned to teach Social Studies in the elementary school, and I taught Values Clarification."

---

Humanists are too perfect to make statements like that?

Well you ahve evidence of that quote. Do you think Mr. Barton will claim he has some sort of secret access to the hearts and minds of the founding fathers as you have asserted? If he does why does he not cite the source.You really do not understand how to quit when you are behind. This is another lameass argument with no evidence to back it up. You are now starting to sound pitiful.

---

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

What I don't understand is how they can even begin to reconcile the BoR with Christian beliefs. It is completely antithetical to Christian values.There is no such thing as right to free speech or freedom of association, and things like that, in Christianity.In Christianity, people are not free to be atheists. People are not free to believe that Jesus was a homosexual if they choose to, nor can they express those beliefs. In Christianity, there is no other choice but to serve God, or you're ostracized from society.The concept of civil rights and liberties are not a Christian creation, regardless of how they try to make it seem like they are.That is why I believe America was meant to be a secular nation, a melting pot of cultures and beliefs.Edited by Tram law, : words added

You are of course, not telling the truth. No-one has ever said that Everson was insignificant, which is why you are completely unable to quote anyone doing so. On the contrary, your opponents have said stuff like this: ... and this ... Meanwhile, you have said stuff like this ... ... and this ... ... thus being wrong about the significance of Everson and implicitly denying the significance of Reynolds. Interesting lie. Which militant atheist historians would these be, and why do you put the word "Baptist" in scare quotes? Are you trying to imply that the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Freedom aren't really Baptists? And why do you say that they hate Barton? They just criticized his scholarship. Your claim used to be: I.e. you wanted to blame the Soviet constitution on Everson.Now that those of us who live in the real world have convinced you that this would violate the principle of causality, you wish to introduce the idea that Black mighta ... coulda ... been influenced by the Soviet Constitution.Which is almost equally ridiculous, since we know that in fact he was citing Reynolds quoting Jefferson, and since you have absolutely no evidence for your dumb fantasy that he got the idea from the Soviets. No-one needs to blindly accept what I assert, because I provide evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

He saw it as a threat not because it was a religion, but because it was a worldview, a term we use today to indicate a set of beliefs about how the world works, a "framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it." Any worldview can be a threat to liberty, a crystal ball isn't needed.

---

This seems to be another of your inventions. A priesthood would be a general feature of religions, not of worldviews in a more general sense. Do you have any evidence of your claim ? Or even any reason to think it relevant ?

quote:

---

No no, why the switch?

---

To compare societies dominated with religion against more secular societies ?

quote:

---

I'd like to see a thread on how much more financially secure and free liberal states like New York and California are compared to more religious ones like Tennessee or Texas. I don't expect you to start that thread anytime soon.

---

Well that would be a switch, because a) The States of the U.S. aren't states in the more general usage of the word and b) they all have secular governments - at least according to the law. So you certainly shouldn't expect me to start a thread to discuss a topic that hadn't even been mentioned in this thread just because you want to talk about it. (And apparently you don't want to talk about it enough to start the thread yourself...).

quote:

---

My many opponents have invented a lot of things in this thread. That "Everson" is insignificant in the subject of separation of church and state is one of many. It speaks volumes that when one of my opponents invents something, no one else but me calls him on it. Opposing my position is far more important than finding truth, isn't it?

---

THe reason why nobody is calling your opponents on this point is that they DIDN'T say that. The argument is over the HOW the Everson case was significant. And it is significant more for its application of the 14th Amendment than for the 1st.

quote:

---

It is significant because those who favor it (communists in Russia, liberals in the US) show the same disdain for liberty and limited government. Links to "Baptist" websites that hate Barton and embrace militant atheist historians aren't impressive to me.

---

In other words the significance is that you want to smear everyone who stands opposed to your view - and reject all evidence against your propaganda.

quote:

---

That's not a fact. If the Soviet constitution that separated church and state was dated in 1936, Black could have noticed it in 1947.

---

Except that that wasn't the link that you proposed. YOU argued that the Soviet constitution was influenced by the Everson ruling. And that WAS a total fiction.

quote:

---

So if Everson wasn't the watershed in separation of church and state, what was? Reynolds? Do you just blindly accept what Dr Adequate asserts, or do you think for yourself?

---

I don't think that there was a watershed. Jefferson and Madison obviously had in mind something like the current interpretation. Apparently Reynolds took a similar view and as I pointed out earlier we had the McCarthy-era changes to money and the Oath of Allegiance after Everson.

quote:

---

So because I referenced it, you didn't even bother to read it?

---

Of course I read it. That's how I know that it is a crazy rant making a lot of assertions and offering very little evidence. It's hardly as good as the sources Dr. Adequate offers - and which you dismiss out of hand with little sign of having read.

quote:

---

That link referenced Dr Sidney Simon. Do you not believe he exists? Do you not believe he made this statement;

​

quote:

---

I always bootlegged the values stuff under other titles. I was assigned to teach Social Studies in the elementary school, and I taught Values Clarification."

---

---

And that's the best you can drag out of it ? That's your evidence of an organised Soviet-style "campaign against religion" ? One guy includes some unspecified values in his classes ? That's not even enough to demonstrate any wrongdoing on the part of Simon. It certainly doesn't demonstrate an organised government campaign against religion !

And note the guy is talking about Elementary School.Sheesh.Values Clarification (whatever that is) at an Elementary School level, and that is his case?

---

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

I have no idea what this means, and refuse to try to speculate on the point you were trying to make. I believe that any time any level of government gives any amount of support to any religion, that could be the first step in establishing that religion. No idea. I wasn't alive then and I don't try to divine the thoughts of those alive then by making up something that someone may have told their great grandchild. Name one, with citation. Hint: you haven't yet. The cases you cite are not voluntary prayer cases. They are cases dealing with governmental support of prayer. These are different things. Who is the "them" you are referring to who are "claiming" the they are establishment cases?Let me give you a tip on reading court opinions. When the court says the case is about the Establishment Clause, the case is about the Establishment Clause. I'm sorry if this is the kind of "complex legal doublespeak" you are having trouble with, but there's really not much I can do to make it more simple than that. Sorry, I can't comply with your request, because it's an indecipherable word salad, and I have no idea what you mean. They are both right, because they are talking about two different things. McCollum dealt with a situation where government resources and the force of law were used in aid of religion. That's prohibited. The Federal Equal Access Act says the government can't discriminate against student religious activity. You need to be clearer about what you think the conflict is, because I just don't see it.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt 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

I know Dr. A already explained this to you, but I'm going to mention it again because I think it illustrates a point I've made a couple of times in this thread. McCollum was 5-4, but all 9 Justices agreed with the holding from Reynolds. You'd know that if you'd actually read the opinions. Obviously, wherever you're getting your information from didn't read them either.I'm also mildly curious about something. What difference does the division of the court make as far as whether an opinion is a landmark case or not? Others have pointed out above that many different sources refer to Reynolds as a landmark case. Please explain the point behind the fact of it being unanimous.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt 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

PaulK responds to marc9000:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'd like to see a thread on how much more financially secure and free liberal states like New York and California are compared to more religious ones like Tennessee or Texas. I don't expect you to start that thread anytime soon.

---

​

Well that would be a switch, because a) The States of the U.S. aren't states in the more general usage of the word and b) they all have secular governments - at least according to the law. So you certainly shouldn't expect me to start a thread to discuss a topic that hadn't even been mentioned in this thread just because you want to talk about it.

---

No, no, please do! Let's see him try to twist his logic around when he discovers that the most liberal/secular states in the union are the ones with the lowest divorce rates, lowest instances of teen pregnancy, highest education rates, etc. and the most conservative/theistic states are the ones with the highest rates of teen pregnancy, highest poverty, highest divorce rates, lowest education, etc.If marc9000 truly cares about the welfare of our nation, then he needs to explain why those areas that are more beholden to "Christian values" are the ones doing the worst. For example, the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts...you know, that state that legalized gay marriage first. Surely a state that disrespects marriage so much that it would throw it open to gays would have a high divorce rate but instead we find the exact opposite.Same for abortion. The state with the lowest abortion rate is Massachusetts. In fact the top 10 states for lowest abortion rates have nine-out-of-ten being "liberal." The bottom 10 are all "conservative."So please, let's have this discussion. Why is it that the most theologically-based societies have the worst outcomes? Why do the most secular societies have the best?

---

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.