Separation of church and state

Like Dr Adequate I did my research. Simply Googling Wikipedia and looking up the translations of the Soviet Constitution linked from there is enough to find that Separation of Church and State was added in 1936.If the information can be found so easily you really have no excuse for not checking the basic fact of when the Soviet Constitution was changed. Think about it.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Let’s see now, Jefferson and Madison informally referenced separation of church and state in the early 1800’s to protect the church from the state.

---

Given Jefferson's opinion of organised religion I don't think that that's a sound conclusion. Also, bear in mind that the Virginia bill for religious freedom forbade government support for religion.For instance, Jefferson writing to Alexander von Humboldt stated

quote:

---

In 1936, communists in the Soviet Union decided separation of church and state was a good way of keeping atheism combined with the state, unopposed.

---

Or a way of paying lip service to civil rights. Your guesses about the Soviet motivation aren't evidence. They're just self-serving speculations.

quote:

---

So, bottom line, we really have no way of knowing if the separation of church and state as applied by Russia and the US were tied together, who got their ideas from whom

---

However we DO know that your original claim, that the Soviets got the idea from a 1947 U.S. court decision is utterly impossible. And we also know that just a little bit of fact checking would have shown that.
And it is clear that you haven't learnt your lesson because you now try to pass off more of your inventions as fact.

quote:

---

But one thing does make sense — that separation of church and state as practiced by Russia works very well for atheist/humanist governments.

---

We also know that the Soviet Union did carry out a number of campaigns against religion. That's not the way it is in the U.S. or likely to be.

quote:

---

So it's clear that separation of church and state is two dimensional. In the sense that Jefferson used it 200+ years ago, it was intended to protect the church from the state. In the sense that it's used today, it's intended to destroy the free exercise of religion.

---

So far as I can tell, neither is true. Jefferson was opposed to organised religion, did not want it to have special privileges and saw it as a threat to liberty. Today, aside from a few local officials misinterpreting the law (and either giving in or losing when taken to court) there are no attempts to destroy free exercise of religion. Or at least not yours.

quote:

---

What is your source for Jefferson's opinion of organized religion?

---

A number of quotes like the one I produced. Jefferson was highly critical of the priesthood and of the Bible in it's current form. Which is why he wrote the Jefferson Bible.

quote:

---

Just as history 200 years later furnishes no example of an atheist-ridden people, or scientist-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.

---

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

quote:

---

That may be, but my hope would be that my guesses would inspire a reader to think about whether or not it makes sense. Of course I would expect committed atheists to discard it without thinking, but there is always the chance that not every reader would be a committed atheist, or one that seeks to promote an establishment of atheism in the US.

---

By which you mean that you hope that you will fool people into thinking that the truth is what you want it to be. And nobody is working for any establishment of atheism in the U.S. There ARE people - like you - working for the establishment of Christianity. (Or rather "Christianity" because I see little that is Christian in it).

quote:

---

So it's important for current supporters of separation of church and state in the US to disregard any historical ties it may have to former communist countries. That's understandable.

---

Since the "ties" are largely your inventions with no basis in fact I would hope that any honest person would disregard them.

quote:

---

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 ?

quote:

---

That there once was an easily recognized difference in establishment of religion vs a promotion of religion. Today, just about any promotion is considered establishment by the courts.

---

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 ?

quote:

---

So you don't see any campaigns against religion in the US?

---

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.

quote:

---

There are attempts to destroy its promotion, a promotion that most past generations considered essential to "peace and good order" in a society of liberty.

---

In other words you know of no serious attempts to destroy free exercise of religion. Only people blocking attempts to establish Christianity.

quote:

---

Your 2nd statement is a false extrapolation.

---

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:

---

The so-called "Jefferson Bible" was actually written by Jefferson as a harmony of the Gospels, not an anthropogenic text. In fact, the "Jefferson Bible" was not even published by Jefferson, nor did he intend - or even want - for it to be published. It was published by a friend after Jefferson's death.

---

Lets compare your description with the one from WikipediaSo 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

That's another thread, one that I would like to see.

---

Perhaps you would like to compare the U.S. to post-revolutionary Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban ?

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

It’s a fact that the phrase separation of church and state has appeared periodically in US history and in Soviet history.

---

And how is this significant ?

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

It isn’t establishment, it is balance, balance to the atheism/humanism that is already established.

---

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:

---

The religion of humanism does campaign against religion, by the US government, in public schools.

---

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.

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 !

quote:

---

You weren’t referring to the 50 US states?

---

No, and I can't think of any reason why I would. All of the states of the U.S ARE secular by law. So what basis of comparison would there be ?

quote:

---

When I’m facing a gang, and one of them plays completely clueless and dumb about Everson, as Dr Adequate did in Message 13 (as I described above) it’s just a little characteristic of mine to apply that cluelessness to the entire gang, if no one corrects him or distances themselves from him, all the while piling on and parroting other things he says. If you ever faced a gang in a debate, I’m sure you would understand.

---

So he DIDN'T say that Everson was insignificant, he just didn't recognise it from your description. He didn't make a mistake, and thus he was in no need of correction.

quote:

---

I’m sure they did. I’m sure that if Jefferson and Madison, possibly joined by Benjamin Franklin, would have had their way, the words separation of church and state would have been somewhere in the Constitution. But they weren’t the only founders! John Jay, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Rufus King, Samuel Adams, Joseph Story, John Witherspoon, Noah Webster, and several dozen others probably would have voted it out.

---

This is mere speculation on your part. However, given that the architects of the First Amendment held that interpretation it cannot be said to be illegitimate, and thus the Supreme Court - which has the authority to interpret the Constitution - can quite reasonably interpret it as they have.

quote:

---

It was one example. Why is it that when I put up one example, it’s automatically assumed that’s the best I have, or a total of all I have? If I’d have put up many more, would you have dismissed it all as a rant?

---

No, it was NOT an example. You claimed that the U.S. government held campaigns against religion. The personal actions of one single teacher hardly constitute a full-blown government campaign, the more so since you don't even know that what he taught was truly against religion. Maybe the fact that you are desperately grasping at straws doesn't PROVE that you don't have real evidence to support your assertion. But I don't think that any reasonable person would think that at all likely.

quote:

---

Because in an issue of misunderstanding, there are two parties involved, and understandor, and an understandee. In this case, the understandor called foreign countries states, and expected me to know he was not referring to individual states in the US. He now has 2 or 3 helpers implying that his communicating skills are perfecto, and I’m fully to blame for misunderstanding him.

---

Believe it or not there are places in the world where that IS the usual meaning of "states". And since as we have established all the states of the U.S. are secular by law (1st plus 14th Amendments) your reading doesn't make much sense.I realise that "Christians" like you don't like to own up to your mistakes - we've got plenty of examples in this thread. But if it really upsets you to be wrong perhaps you should make more of an effort to get it right in the first place.

quote:

---

It’s promoted in science education. Naturalism, humanism, atheism, however it may be described, is considered the only guide for scientific studies, and has branched out to include virtually all modern thought in every field.

---

Translation: "Science has disproved the beliefs of my sect. Therefore we must be given special privileges."

quote:

---

That everything changes and is changeable. That humans are capable of knowing everything. This kind of thinking can lead to the kind of tyranny that the founders were most united against, that was clearly the most important thing for their government to prevent.

---

Translation: "If people are allowed to disagree with me, we'll end up with a tyranny ! SO obviously you must appoint me as tyrant !"

quote:

---

Scientific claims that life arose naturally from non-life from primordial soup billions of years ago, and that global warming is controllable by humans, are only two of many.

---

In fact science has not yet established how life first arose (although the smart money is on a natural origin on this planet). And it is certain that humans have contributed to global warming and can take steps to at least reduce their contribution. You're simply on the side of those who love money more than human life (what does the Bible say about the love of money ?)