Separation of Church and State

[bwalker42]

From the ever Bad and evil source "Wikipedia" (LMAO)

Cut...








And,










Separation of church and state in the United StatesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
The phrase "separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state"), attributed to Thomas Jefferson and others, and since quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, expresses an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to an 1 January 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "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 & State".[1]

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." [2] However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as meaning absolute separation of government from all things religious.[3][4][5][6]

Public debates about the proper extent of church/state separation in the U.S. remain vigorous and impassioned. Politically active evangelical Christians such as David Barton, a former co-chair of the Texas Republican party, emphasize the religiosity of the nation's founders and assert that "separation of church and state," as widely understood by modern historians and jurists, is a "myth" and that the U.S. was founded as a religious, Christian nation.[7]

[jackdale]

Brenda

You need to emphasize the important part

Public debates about the proper extent of church/state separation in the U.S. remain vigorous and impassioned. Politically active evangelical Christians such as David Barton, a former co-chair of the Texas Republican party, emphasize the religiosity of the nation's founders and assert that "separation of church and state," as widely understood by modern historians and jurists, is a "myth" and that the U.S. was founded as a religious, Christian nation.[7]

And provide the sources of the phrase

The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[16] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

And remember the treaty of Tripoli

In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[48]
Because Article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution renders ratified treaties "the supreme Law of the Land", supporters of the separation of church and state believe the Treaty of Tripoli confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral.

[BentSailor]

There you go again, Jack, introducing facts & context into a political debate

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

There you go again, Jack, introducing facts & context into a political debate

Mea culpa - now I have injected religion.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Mea culpa - now I have injected religion.

I guess that ought to balance out the facts then

[CalebD]

Facts? or Religion?
What a difficult choice!
There really is a fine line between religions but facts, well they are all over the place.
Decisions, decisions.
I'll guess that the State is attached to Religion by butyl tape. Anyone?

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by bwalker42

Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Well that one is sure not defended by the right wing "Defenders of the Constitution" like Jerry's Oathkeepers et. al.

Just TRY running for President without regular and overt demonstrations of what a dedicated, churchgoing Christian you are.

Sounds like a "test" to me.

[RAGNAR]

There are few things funnier than collectivists condescending to religionists on this issue.

Why?

In many ways modern collectivism is as - even more - mystical than the may almost all religions are practiced in today's West.

So, yes, we need a firewall between religion and government, as all irrationality leads to statism/tyranny and religions are blatantly irrational systems. But we need just as effective a firewall between us and notions like majority rule, redistribution schemes, the factories that make up rights 24/7, both for human beings and other species, the Green movement, etc. And we need the latter firewall for the same reason we need the former: irrationality leads to statism/tyranny.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

Sounds like a "test" to me.

Yes, but it's not one mandated by law - which honestly is all that is required by the Constitution. Just like being white wasn't required by law... and look how long it took for a black guy to make it. You can still run as a non-Christian, just don't expect any media exposure, donations, or hope in hell.... you know, like Nader

Whilst I agree that being Christian is obviously a prerequisite of becoming a US President, criticism of such should be levelled at US society, not the Constitutional mandate of state/church separation

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

So, yes, we need a firewall between religion and government, as all irrationality leads to statism/tyranny and religions are blatantly irrational systems. But we need just as effective a firewall between us and notions like majority rule, redistribution schemes, the factories that make up rights 24/7, both for human beings and other species, the Green movement, etc. And we need the latter firewall for the same reason we need the former: irrationality leads to statism/tyranny.

A Benevolent Dictatorship is about the best anyone's come up with so far, Rags.

...and from what I've seen, that works pretty well..