Separation of church and state

No comment. 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.

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.

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.

Everson appears on both of those lists as well. 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. Everson is on there too. It says;

quote:

---

Besides having begun to define the "wall" between church and state in the education sphere, Everson was also the first opportunity for the Court to establish that the Fourteenth Amendment required the religion clauses of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states -- one of the last pieces of the Bill of Rights not yet addressed with regard to the Fourteenth.

---

Reynolds did nothing anywhere near that significant concerning separation of church and state. Landmarky about bigamy and polygamy, yes — landmarky about separation, sorry, but no. 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. 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:

---

At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the 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." 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. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

​

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society....

​

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life.

---

The summary of that case is as follows;

quote:

---

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

---

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:

---

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. New Jersey has not breached it here.

---

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. 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. 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? 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.

Hmm, what was it that you were just saying about "smear machine"?

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. That's another thread, one that I would like to see. 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 isn’t establishment, it is balance, balance to the atheism/humanism that is already established. The religion of humanism does campaign against religion, by the US government, in public schools.The Religion of Humanism

quote:

---

In 1961 the United States Supreme Court declared Humanism to be a RELIGION (case of Torcasco vs. Watkins). Now you say, "If Humanism is a religion, such as Judaism, Christianity, etc., where are the Humanist churches, where is the headquarters, the Mother Church?" My answer: The government school classrooms have been misappropriated by the Humanists as their 'churches.' Their 'cathedrals' are the universities, colleges and seminaries; their 'Mother Church' a not-so-well known institute. It is in these places that they provide, mostly through deception, daily 'preaching' of their religious ideology. They use taxpayer funds to further their cause, and they do so in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

---

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:

---

Humanist 'sermons' in the classroom come under many headings, since virtually any subject can be used as a springboard for anti-God, anti-moral absolutes, anti-family, and anti-nation indoctrination. Under the deceptive guise of increasing 'critical thinking skills,' minor children are compelled to participate in classroom discussions in which the 'anti' concepts are clearly gotten across. Dr. Sidney Simon, author of Values Clarification, said, "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."

---

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)

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

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!

Of course. This is because it was also a landmark case, for reasons that you have apparently not bothered to research. 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? 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. Apart from establishing the legal precedent that that's what the First Amendment means. Apart from introducing the principle that the First Amendment meant separation. 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: While you have produced no evidence that Black hated Catholics, it seems that Catholics just loved him. Reynolds was when the principle that the First Amendment meant separation was legally established. Newly. 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. 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. And how very wrong you were. 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. 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.

And yet on this particular issue they seem to be in agreement with the Baptist Joint Committee On Religious Liberty. About what Jefferson said in 1802?

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

Maybe he's a Communist.

I'm sure Barton hangs out with 200-year-old Virginians on a regular basis.

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.

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. 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. 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.