Separation of church-state  

redmustang91 57M  
8729 posts
11/18/2005 11:59 am

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

Separation of church-state


Sadly most people do not study the US Constitution and learn the history of the US in detail. In law school you do, and immigrants study these issues to become citizens! Many do not understand the importance of separating church and state. See Iran and Iraq for examples of sectarian oppression and violence when religious majorities oppress minorities. The US was founded to avoid such intolerance, and many cared deeply about avoiding establishing a State religion. My response to a blog quoted below goes into more detail why I think "under God" does not belong in our Pledge of Allegiance and "In God we Trust" does not belong on our coins and currency!

I am a lawyer and have some knowledge of the issues. "In God we trust" was added to coins after the Civil War in 1866 as a healing idea floated by a clergyman. It was not on bills until the 1950's when the US was concerned about godless communism, about the same time the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, for the same reason. The ACLU and some parents of athiests believe the Federal Government is violating the US Constitution's First Amendment which prohibits government establishment of religion. This concept is basic to the foundation of the US: the notion of separation of church and state. In England there is an established religion, Church of England. So nonbelievers, Catholics and Hindus pay taxes to support the local Church of England church. Henry the 8th split from the Catholic church, stole their property and made himself head of the Church of England. Pilgrims left England because they felt it immoral to require them to pay for promoting views they thought were heresy!

The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid this situation in the US and would not have ratified the US constitution but for the first ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. The point is separation of church and state is part of the fabric of the US and demands official neutrality toward all different religions in the US. So athiests, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, Catholics, diests, Moslems, etc. have different ideas about god and religion and our official currency and government functions should not promote any one religious view. A very big deal to many people.

If you think the right wing Christians are not trying to take over the country, see what happens if you try to get the pledge of allegiance to have a rotating section to replace "Under God" with a new part each week: Under Satan, under Allah, under Buddha, under the universe (for deists), under Jehovah but not Jesus (for the Jews), under Zoraster, under Zeus, under all the Gods of Hindus, etc.

Start to get the idea about other people's religions being snubbed. Start to feel like your kids are being brainwashed without your permission against your culture and religion? Start to understand why people sue, and in other lands throw bombs or start a civil war?

Start to understand why sex is more fun than politics?

Satyr48 68M
1773 posts
11/18/2005 1:48 pm

There is no Constitutional doctrine of "separation of Church & State"

That wording was put into a Supreme Court decision by Justice Hugo Black, a known anti-Semite and anti-Catholic... Another example of an activist Liberal Judge finding something in the Constitution that doesn't exist.

The First Ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting (regarding) the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise thereof"

It means the Government can't establish an official State Religion, or interfere in the poeples' personal religious choices. That doesn't mean that religion can't have an influence on our government. It means that the government must be mute on the subject of religion, and can have no limiting effect on religious expression. NONE! PERIOD!

Government can't tell us not to display our religious artifacts.
Government can't "side" with one religion over another.
Government can't "side" with the religious over Athiests.
Government can't "side" with Athiests over the religious.

"...nor the FREE EXERCISE thereof" MEANS SOMETHING!!!!

What's "woven into the fabric" of this Nation is the right to express all religions freely.

What's "woven into the fabric" of this Nation is the Judeo-Christian ethic that was Jefferson's model and guide for the Constitution.

What's "woven into the fabric" of this Nation is that "... we are endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain, inalienable rights..." - therefore the belief in a "Creator" - therefore "god", whatever you percieve that to be.

To try to re-write history to satisfy your own personal beliefs doesn't work.
And if you think rabid Left-wing Atheists aren't trying to take over and re-write history, just witness Las Cruces, New Mexico being sued to change their 200 year old logo because it dares to have crosses in it... The name "Las Cruces" MEANS "the crosses" DUH!!!
Witness the group organizing a lawsuit (with the ACLU) to eliminate all the crosses on the graves in Arlington National Cemetery as "establishing religion on Government property"
Witness all the exercises in revisionism that the radical Atheist Left has forced on the 87% of the country that DOES hold religious beliefs.

The radical, rabid, Left is intent on maintaining the "Victim Mentality" - going around just looking for things to find offensive - so they can try to whine their way all the way to the Supreme Court and try to get the Constitution re-written (like Hugo Black did) when they can't get their agenda passed legislatively. That's why it's necessary to have a Supreme Court that READS the Constitution rather than reading things into it... Justices aren't there to "interpert" the Constitution - they're there to APPLY it!

You say you're a lawyer - so you took an oath to UPHOLD the law - not RE-WRITE it.... Didn't you??? Hmmm??

Pleasing women in unbelievable ways for 45 years...
You could be next...


redmustang91 57M  
8599 posts
11/18/2005 4:04 pm

I think Satyr is insane. People with views like his are destroying the US. I suggest he read the Federalist papers. I think Judges have a great problem trying to appease Christian zealots. We are still stuck with fundamentalist idiots who would not give a dman about corrupting our ideals so long as we promote Christianity. Try to pretend Moslems were forcing you to pledge allegiance to Allah or Hindus forced you to learn the Sanskrit names of all the Hindu Gods! Not likey, I will bet! Such a fool. I don't have a problem with private people promoting their faith. My problem is using the public schools, courts and public spaces to promote one religion. If you want to have all religions represented you need a very big area! Promoting public area Christianity is illegal, unethical, unfair as well as unconstitutional in my view. The fact that judges avoid making hard decisions is just testament to Republican and right wing zealots.


redmustang91 57M  
8599 posts
11/18/2005 4:09 pm

For example having an Easter sunrise cross paid for by public money is unconstitutional, while having it on private property is fine. Letting religous organizations use school facilities after hours is ok, so long as all are allowed equally. Having prayer to Jesus in a public school led by the teacher is not! That is to separate the religious views so the government is not establishing one or any religion. It is not that tough if you keep the notion of avoiding imprimatur in mind and allow even handed non religious acts by government. Let the private people do their thing inprivate or on their own without me paying for your religious beliefs I may not support! If you want private church schooling put your kid in a private church school


Become a member to create a blog