No Such Thing As Separation Of Church And State - Hypocrisy ONLY

The oath for President of the United States is:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The 'so help me God' part is optional.

a reply to: schuyler

thank you! This was the first time I'd considered that, myself. I'm flattered that you think that I made a good point because you are more well-informed than I am. I was just thinking about how one could go about overturning those rulings and I came up with that justification.

a reply to: intrptr

I feel that they never sought to separate church and state because they knew the term we the people meant we the people with religious views and that would not ever change. So then it became prudent to form a system that no single religion could dominate without the will of the people. Meaning that the religions of the people would be able to operate freely in the u.s..

There is no such thing as secularism.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
how long has it been that way?

a reply to: rukia

So they publicly stated hands off, but privately they meant both ways.

The first amendment…

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't state religion can mix with the state. It states the state can't make any law regarding peoples right to practice any religion, worship any God.

Thats the public statement. The unspoken one is thats a two way street. Because they thought the Christian religion was the most dangerous sort of established religion. But they couldn't publicly say that. Most of the people there in those days were deeply conditioned by the Church of England or the Catholic Church, which were usually at war with each others dogmas back in Europe (imagine that, a war of religions).

Wars were fought over the disagreement between established religions, the history of Europe at that time is rife with the misery behind it all.

Thats why they didn't want their new republic messing with religion at all, period; so stated in the very first amendment, very first line.

Everyone understood that, God and Country shall be separate. The reason there is so much confusion over that nowadays is that was almost immediately swept say by both the powers that be, both became burdens on the population: Organized religion and government.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Since 1787.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I feel that they never sought to separate church and state because they knew the term we the people meant we the people with religious views and that would not ever change.

They meant everyone has the right to worship whatever… in church. You wasn't to practice religion, do that in church.

They were warning us against mixing the two.

a reply to: intrptr

Thank you! Yeah, I don't know why I didn't understand your reference to that. Makes sense now

a reply to: intrptr

Just as the forces who want to subvert individual liberty by enslaving state against religion are prevalent--however, more-so today than in the past. It goes both ways/flip-flopped. I believe that the forces who want to enslave the system in the name of religion are not prevalent at all. Sure, they used to be, back when attitudes weren't as open-minded and when the church held sway with their fire and brimstone threats. But that wasn't very Christ-like. What we did to the Native Americans was totally against what Jesus taught us to do. Luckily, hindsight is 20/20. Only very extreme, cult-like religious denominations would advocate for subverting individual liberty.

I'm going to tell you a story to better illustrate the point above: back in 2007-08, during my junior year of high school, I was in AP U.S. Government and Politics/AP Comparative Politics class. And we had a discussion about Christmas and the separation of church and state. I argued that Christmas is a nice holiday--(which made me a laughingstock at the time, which was somewhat traumatic)--and said to go ahead and put whatever you want next to the Jesus nativity scene, but don't remove it because I like it there. Let Baphomet and Ba'al and Buddha and whatever else chill there with Jesus if you must, but there is nothing inherently wrong with Jesus being there. Not to mention, it's a pagan holiday that Christians changed to celebrate the birth of Christ (which, incidentally, didn't even happen on Christmas).

We aren't banning pagans from celebrating at all anymore. I have many pagan friends--one of whom is a Wiccan priestess and another of whom is a Satanist--and we all get along just fine. I like them both very much. I'm not saying that all Christians are like me, but many are. They're just not as vocal as I am and when they are, they sometimes sound like they're trying to convert people--not because they want to take away your freedom--but because they love you and want you to go to heaven. They know that you don't have to believe anything, they're just trying to show you another way of doing things. So they're not actually trying to coerce anything. I have done the same with the two friends that I mentioned, and both of them said no, but listened to me and then talked with me about their beliefs and then that was it. And we all walked away happy and still friends. The reason why most Christians act the way that they do is because they feel attacked by these people who don't like Christianity. They are also not usually friends with Satanist and Wiccans and the like because the Bible does say not to befriend people like that. And maybe I'm foolish in doing so, but there you have it. The Bible does NOT say that these people are the enemy, however. Powers and principalities are seen as the enemy in Christianity--not people.

Anyway, my story got kind of long and kinda lost the point there at the end: which is, basically, that Christianity is being unfairly judged as being extreme and out to convert and steal away liberties when it is, by and large, not out to do those things at all.

a reply to: intrptr
No that is nlbs

they were trying to prevent a religions from being excluded

why would they promote a complete separation of church and state when doing so could and will only end with the removal of religion from we the people because in their view we are the gov.

They had been a religion with no representation and sought a system where any religion backed by the people could be celebrated and practiced anywhere.

The system you describe them as seeking is not realistic because that very system would have kept them completely removed from the government by definition of c&s.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: intrptr

There is no such thing as secularism.

Well, actually there is. It's the separation of church and state--and it exists. That's why they formed a system where no single religion could forcefully dominate our government and make it answer to them. Which is why we can believe and say anything we want and not fear the force of the law. So by your own musings secularism does exist as we do not mix the two. The secularist movement of today, however, can be argued as being twisted from the original meaning into meaning a promotion of no religion whatsoever.

a reply to: rukia

Anyway, my story got kind of long and kinda lost the point there at the end: which is, basically, that Christianity is being unfairly judged as being extreme and out to convert and steal away liberties when it is, by and large, not out to do those things at all.

Well, Islam is being blamed for a lot these days and true Islam isn't responsible… right?

Not that there aren't extremists on both sides…

The worst atrocities are perpetrated on peoples and cultures by the nicest, best dressed people.

You could try reading some of the quotes and intent behind the Founding Fathers meaning in this search. Remember, I make clear distinctions between organized religion and Individual spirituality, so can't hold for all the content herein…

search results

originally posted by: intrptr

But as a group they knew the inherent dangers of merging church and state. It didn't have to be explained to them. Their English / European backgrounds made them all too aware of what happens when the church meddles in the affairs of state.

So they publicly stated hands off, but privately they meant both ways.

But that's where it gets tricky. You say that privately they meant that. How do you know? And I'm not asking in an antagonistic manner because the contemporary courts are asking the same thing. They cannot go by what someone says they "actually meant" because that kind of evidence is not admissible. It doesn't even come up to the level of hearsay. And THAT'S why you see the courts justifying their contemporary interpretation by hanging their decision on an obscure letter written by Jefferson many years later.

Don't you think the courts would have cited a better reference if they could have? If they could have shown that James Madison said, "Yeah, well we didn't like the Church of England thing so we put this phrase in the 1st amendment trying to keep government and church entirely separate. We didn't want anyone praying on government property, but we couldn't SAY that so we stuck this language in which means the exact opposite."

I mean, what's with the National Cathedral? And what about them holding church services in the Capitol? They did all that, so if they really meant "separation of church and state" how we are interpreting it today, they surely did a poor job of it.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Sorry dead eye, read it and weep.

12. “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

Source

Edit:

a reply to: schuyler

Pretty obvious what they feared would be the result from mixing, no?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: deadeyedick

Sorry dead eye, read it and weep.

12. “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

Source

Edit:

a reply to: schuyler

Pretty obvious what they feared would be the result from mixing, no?

We can interpret that individually.

You take it to mean that a priest can not be part of the gov. nlbs

I take it to read that they believed that a church trying to perform the rituals of gov. would fail.

They sought to have a gov. that was representative of the people.

They modeled that gov. after the church. Just take a look at the house of rep. It is a church.

Let's see if they were using the religion to build a gov. then the passing a law would be called sin it.

a reply to: schuyler

The thing that folks forget is that it's not just about keeping religion out of government but also keeping government out of religion. Thus the whole "wall of separation" notion is a sound one, because we live in a multi-cultural society with many faiths that must be defended... so when a government run function is doing the business of religious ceremony they must either make it inclusive to all faiths or not have it at all.

It works both ways, it's rather the opposite of Reese's peanut butter cups. You keep your religion off my government, you keep your government off my religion, and they can both flourish. Otherwise you get them tangled up and governments start playing favorites with people's personal beliefs while religions start running elections.

a reply to: rukia

The entire world is moving to a 1 world religion and I don't think it's going to be Christianity. We will all be forced into acceptance someday soon. Dissidents won't live for long.

originally posted by: intrptr

a reply to: schuyler

Pretty obvious what they feared would be the result from mixing, no?

Another Jefferson letter, this time from 1813. He still did not write the 1st amendment, so using his writings after the fact to somehow prove what several hundred people other than himself meant is, I think, a stretch. I suspect Jefferson is used because his writing conforms to the modern viewpoint and he's famous enough that many people assume he was responsible for the whole thing.

But once again, that's cherry picking. They're not about to quote George Washington when he said: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

I am not a Christian. I do not disagree with the doctrine of the separation of church & state. And I agree that Jefferson felt the same way, James Madison, primary author of the Constitution, even more so. But none of these guys had a problem invoking the idea of God in a public speech on government property, or bowing in prayer on government land. That we have come to that notion, that a prayer after a game on a school yard is a violation of the separation of church and state would, I think, puzzle them exceedingly.

a reply to: schuyler

But none of these guys had a problem invoking the idea of God in a public speech on government property, or bowing in prayer on government land. That we have come to that notion, that a prayer after a game on a school yard is a violation of the separation of church and state would, I think, puzzle them exceedingly.

Can't argue with that.

Politicians even today play to religion jussst enough to make it seem they are also religious. Some even go to church. Then all week they sign bills to build WMD.

I must reminisce though, about what happens when church and state are inseparable. The Middle ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, all surrounding the power of the state being wielded to religious ends. Or rather, at least seemingly for that. I think it was cover for power, greed and conquest, actually… just like today.

Islama this and that… results in invading another country.

Really, why are we talking 200 years ago, instead of today.

Whatever our forefather's intention, they are dead. They did their thing and we've evolved from there.

Today is is clear which direction Separation of Church and State has taken ---- by lawsuits won.

The push is toward secular ---- even with Christians screaming and yelling as they lose the control they never should have had in the first place.

I live in today's world.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: rukia

The entire world is moving to a 1 world religion and I don't think it's going to be Christianity. We will all be forced into acceptance someday soon. Dissidents won't live for long.

How do you force belief?