Separation of Church and State has gone too far

All great replies. Nothing for me to reply to. But I will add, I may have used a poor choice of words for the opening post.

Not far enough !

I and many others don't want to be forced to live a life filled with religious dogma, and extrimist fundies in power.

That the majority can get their religious believes become part of government legislation, is because we try and live a democracy.

Be happy what you get, but don't force your ways to all others. There is a reason secularism came to be, and most parts of the world are including freedom of religion.

Don't take away my rights and freedom to choose my own believes. If that happens, I'm not gonna sit down and accept.
I will start a freaking war to end religious rule. A war nobody expacts coming, and how it's gonna be different from all others.
The resulting casualty count will go so high, the Nazi were amateurs, compared to it.

I'm a peacefull guy. Please show some wisdom, and coexist with others.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Ahh... Sorry Tenth, I was replying as much for title and thread flow as a whole, as your specific points. You're right and I was wrong to not separate that a bit better.

In their wisdom of being able to form a system on universal (key word) religious values that all could agree with, yet not even mention a specific figure or unique feature of one denomination in the process, was masterful. It had to be deliberate and I think it still is.

I read a couple dozen Congressional prayers last night, looking for that very specific thing. Was Jesus or ANYONE specific to a Faith or denomination ever mentioned? Nope...not that I could find, despite prayers opening Congress on some days where I almost read the name out of pure mental substitution for it's place being so familiar in specific lines.

I'm all for a nation of true freedom of, while not from the idea of religious Faith. To make it free from, as some extremes these days would seek, does as much harm to those being removed as those being made to endure it with the opposite extreme, IMO.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

This is pure BS, if you read any of my political posts you will see that I am the furthest thing from a leftist or socialist. So I am proof that you are wrong. You are just spewing political rhetoric that does nothing to further the conversation and is aimed at creating arguments.

originally posted by: iosolomon
All great replies. Nothing for me to reply to. But I will add, I may have used a poor choice of words for the opening post.

So atheist are not taking it to far then?
I feel like you didn't make this thead just to pat the people who responded on the back with a "good reply"

I can understand some views of those who hold religion and God as the most important thing in their world. However, i tend to agree that the separation of religion and the government is for the better in order to create a fair and harmonious state. There is much more religious diversity today compared to the times of the founding fathers thus creating a struggle within government by religious groups in order to make sure their religion is represented not just Christianity. Being from Ireland i see the power of the church still has a strong hand in Government. Within my area it is almost impossible to find a school that does not require the child to follow the set religion. I dont agree with this as i cant find a direct correlation between religious beliefs and the learning environment. This for me is just a form of indoctrination from a young age and on a basis of your child losing out on education if you do not comply. I myself was a practising catholic but have moved towards spirituality and feel much closer to God as a result. This reason is due to the role of religion in todays world causing more division and hurt than embracing the fundamentals of love and kindness.
This idea of atheism replacing religion in these roles is not true as it is not the setting out of the belief of no God existing. There is a difference in that the government are not saying to the citizen to not believe in God but that it doesnt matter and you can believe or follow ANY God.

To be honest this is another thread that i feel does not show a true side of the fundamentals of religion. People should be looking around them to those they can help and spread the idea of love to those most in need. However the slight feeling i get from this thread is that of someone feeling the power of an religion is weakening over the ruling of the mass and choose to blame others. This can be viewed as a good thing that will bring together a more diverse group of people and to not feel restricted by the mass religion in order drop barriers and encourage friendship.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

This is pure BS, if you read any of my political posts you will see that I am the furthest thing from a leftist or socialist. So I am proof that you are wrong. You are just spewing political rhetoric that does nothing to further the conversation and is aimed at creating arguments.

What I stated are facts. Take it personally or don't - your choice.

a reply to: Sinter Klaas

Just to clarify for you, the US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. Huge difference.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: iosolomon

When revisionist history tries to paint a picture of the founding fathers as anything but social & lawful secularists, we have a problem.

The question is: Exactly WHO is being revisionist?

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

Source

This is but a short excerpt provided by the Library of Congress. If you care to peruse the document as a whole you will see that the "Founding Fathers" did such things as attend church services in the Capitol building, no less. They were NOT anti-religious. Indeed, Jefferson even wrote his version of the Bible and considered himself a Christian:

In this letter to his friend Benjamin Rush, Jefferson asserted that he was a "Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be." In an attached syllabus, Jefferson compared the "merit of the doctrines of Jesus" with those of the classical philosophers and the Jews. Jefferson pronounced Jesus' doctrines, though "disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers" far superior to any competing system.

Ibid.

The celebrated phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was contained in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. American courts have used the phrase to interpret the Founders' intentions regarding the relationship between government and religion. The words, "wall of separation," appear just above the section of the letter that Jefferson circled for deletion. In the deleted section Jefferson explained why he refused to proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as his predecessors, George Washington and John Adams, had done. In the left margin, next to the deleted section, Jefferson noted that he excised the section to avoid offending "our republican friends in the eastern states" who cherished days of fasting and thanksgiving.

Ibid.

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

Ibid, Part 1

From this you can see that at least four of the "Founding fathers": Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, considered themselves religious and felt that religion had a place in government. They attended and promoted church services in government-owned building, most notably the Capitol, but also the Treasury, and constantly invoked religion as integral to government. And you can also see that though Jefferson's words have been used by the courts to interpret a "separation of church and state" that the context in which Jefferson used (and discarded) the terms were in conjunction with preserving religious freedom and not antagonizing it rather than actually separating government from religion. It's interesting that though he discarded the phrase in his letter, it has been used to justify separation anyway.

So though I agree with the idea of separation of church and state, those who claim the "Founding Fathers" did so adamantly as well are the ones taking the issue completely out of context. If you fancy yourself a student of history, it might be useful for you to examine what the Founding Fathers actually said rather than parrot what you think they said in support of an issue that you really can't document all that well and that is far more nuanced than you would have us believe.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Again Jefferson:

He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.

www.monticello.org...

Though he had a lifelong esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, Jefferson did not believe in miracles, nor in the divinity of Jesus. In a letter to deRieux in 1788, he declined a request to act as a godfather, saying he had been unable to accept the doctrine of the Trinity "from a very early part of my life".

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[

en.wikipedia.org...

Whoops forgot to tag first quote as from "cloud".

Then there is also "Jefferson's Bible", in which he cut the ethical teachings of Jesus and put them in a book that excluded miracles and outright "god" and divine remarks.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: iosolomon

A secular government actually PROTECTS people's religious freedoms and rights. It doesn't take away from them. With a secular government and secular rule of law, no one religion gets a foothold over everyone else. Without it, different religions would be forcing their version of 'right' on everyone else. It would be a blood bath. A secular rule of law doesn't impose atheism. A secular rule of law preserves the peace and allows each individual to impose religious rule of law upon themselves alone, if they wish to.

Secular rule of law.

Well said and I couldn't agree more. Historically, it's been a literal bloodbath.

a reply to: Chamberf=6

Thank you! It's important to note the founders and men of that era were anything but of one mind on the matter. Jefferson sat on one edge of that debate for the position he took on some specific aspects and it was his right, too.

I also notice he did nothing concrete in action to bring his wishes into real practice beyond what came as a part of the framework agreed on by all and put to paper in what came to form the ultimate law of the land.

That made him both opinionated and wise as a leader within a republic, IMO.

The irony is that the Founding Fathers pushed Freedom OF Religion because the Crown controlled the Church and they recognized that was an undesirable cluster of a situation. They wanted the government to have no say over the churches.

Over the decades, that concept has become bastardized into "get the church out of the government" and Freedom FROM Religion.

In reality both the ultra-religious and the militant atheists need to sit down and STFU, recognizing that they are a minority opinion and we (should) live in a majority rule DEMOCRACY. That DEMOCRACY essentially dictates that, if the People want a leader of a particular religion, they vote him/her into office. Just because you can flap your gums loudly doesn't mean you deserve to be placated. The First Amendment grants YOU the right to believe as you wish, worship as you wish, and speak openly about what you believe in... nowhere does it grant you any form of protection against HEARING someone with differing views and beliefs exercise their first amendment rights.

a reply to: iosolomon

So... are you saying you enjoyed the Inquesition?
You do know why they call it the "King James Bible" don't you?
It was written in a manner which would be pleasing to James the King of England at that time.
This is why, I believe, so much emphisis is given to the "Devine Rights of the King".
It serves well to give as much control as possible to the rulers of the people, through the church as through the power of the state.
When the ruller acn do no wrong, most of what they do will be wrong.
Or, to put it another way, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly."
This has always been true regardless if it be politician or pope.

I guess we should then decide which church to give the reigns to.

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: iosolomon



So... are you saying you enjoyed the Inquesition?

You do know why they call it the "King James Bible" don't you?

It was written in a manner which would be pleasing to James the King of England at that time.

This is why, I believe, so much emphisis is given to the "Devine Rights of the King".

It serves well to give as much control as possible to the rulers of the people, through the church as through the power of the state.

When the ruller acn do no wrong, most of what they do will be wrong.

Again, the modern argument is 180 degrees off of what the original argument was. It was about getting the "king" out of the "church", not vice-versa.

a reply to: schuyler

I covered this earlier.

There's a big difference between their personal lives and governing lives.

They were pro secularists for the purpose of government.

~Tenth

a reply to: iosolomon

They may have held God near and dear, but they held it in their hearts, where it belongs NOT in government. The constitution is very clear on this:


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.es.


In other words it is not acceptable or the government to favor one religion over another, or to prevent people from practicing their religions. It protects BOTH the religious person and the atheist, without infringing on the rights of either. Rather brilliant actually.

I completely agree. It is twisting history and facts to suit the argument. We know, for a fact, that a number of Founding Fathers believed in God. Heck, the ones who were Masons surely believed in God, in some form, considering it is a requirement for membership. So have these people exhausted all other options to the point that they have to just make things up to get their way? Or was this person just ignorant regarding history? It seems that one would be hard-pressed not to know that there was religious sentiments to the founding of the US, considering the word God appears just about everywhere.

a reply to: iosolomon

Our Founding Fathers all very much held God dear and near. And, even in Abraham Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address, God is alluded to. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

They were not the kind of Christians you seem to think.

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

They were not like the right wing Christians we have today. Nothing like them at all. So your simply wrong.
They separate God from Government. It's kind of a big part of how we were founded. You should read more about the founding Fathers. You don't have to take my word for it, much of theirs is duly written down.


V