The Perpetrated Lie of Today's Separation of Church and State

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is someone ramming anything down someones throat? Or are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

As an example: putting up a monument of the Ten Commandments at a courthouse sends the message that the Ten Commandments has special status in that place.

- as a declaration on behalf of the institution, this implies that in cases of conflict between the Ten Commandments and the nation's laws, the court should be expected to uphold the Ten Commandments and disregard the law.

- as a religious symbol, this implies that the court is aligned with the religion that uses the Ten Commandments as a symbol. Members of that religion should expect preferential treatment and non-members should expect to be disadvantaged.

- also as a religious symbol, it can be seen as a declaration of what is sacred to the institution, which implies that profaning the Ten Commandments - i.e. just exercising one's right to free speech in a way that doesn't give deference to the Ten Commandments - is something that the institution won't tolerate... even if legal.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not sure how all of this applies to the current mis-interpretation of the wall of separation.

To you it's a mis-interpretation. To me, it's the evolution of understanding of how to apply the simple First's statement to our complex world. I was exploring what to me are the implications of undoing the changes in understanding you proffered.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure how all of this applies to the current mis-interpretation of the wall of separation.

I think you're the one making the misinterpretation.

The American Founding Fathers were steeped in the knowledge of the English Civil War. They knew full well that marrying the state to a church results in religious oppression.

Give a religion special status in the laws and institutions of government, and it will use its power to persecute other religions. As times change and other denominations come to power, that original favored denomination will find itself persecuted as well.

The lesson they learned from the English Civil War is to make sure that government only reflects what is common to all the people.

At the turn of the 19th Century, it was probably accurate enough to say that "generic Christianity" - without expressing any particular denomination - reflected all the people. Today, no religion reflects all the people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's important to point something out in this thread: equality under the law is impossible if the government favours one religious group over another, or favours religion over non-religion. Secularism is necessary for equality.

That's really what this is about: @KenS is arguing against equality.

 

[Kenny]

How?

Slavery, which was changed, has nothing to do with what the Constitution still says to the imaginary "wall of separation between church and state" which doesn't exist in the Constitution.

 

[Kenny]

Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa
Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare
Hare Rāma Hare Rāma
Rāma Rāma Hare Hare

Correct... as long as you don't infringe on the right of Christians.

Look at the anti-Christian stance that is being displayed:

Can you place the 10 Commandments.... NO

but:

07iht-muslims.4.7022566.html

You can have foot baths for Muslims.

Would you call that fair?

 

[Kenny]

I think it's important to point something out in this thread: equality under the law is impossible if the government favours one religious group over another, or favours religion over non-religion. Secularism is necessary for equality.

That's really what this is about: @KenS is arguing against equality.

We aren't talking about having favor one group over another... where did you get that from? Or are you inventing something!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We aren't talking about having favor one group over another... where did you get that from? Or are you inventing something!

Give your head a shake. That's exactly what you're talking about.

Read your own OP, which praised the idea of special treatment, special influence, and even direct financial subsidy of Christian groups and Christian worship.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Correct... as long as you don't infringe on the right of Christians.

Look at the anti-Christian stance that is being displayed:

Can you place the 10 Commandments.... NO

but:

07iht-muslims.4.7022566.html

You can have foot baths for Muslims.

Would you call that fair?

Yes. Why wouldn't you?

Edit: foot baths are something that accommodates basic participation by Muslims. Observant Muslims pray 5 times a day at appointed times, with ablution - including foot washing - required beforehand. Without a reasonable way to wash their feet on campus, it would be difficult for an observant Muslim to be a college student.

For a Christian, a similar type of accommodating basic participation would mean identifying and providing what Christians need for their obligatory rituals. This would probably just mean excusing Christian students from class on Sundays and Christian holy days so they can attend their worship services.

U of M Dearborn has gone well above and beyond this threshold by not even holding classes on Sundays or Christian holy days.

The myopia I often see from Christians on this is a bit mind-boggling. Don't you realize that our societal norms and government institutions were built around the dictates of your religion? Apparently not, because I've never seen a case where someone tries to do some small thing - like footbaths - to make it a bit easier to be a non-Christian in a culture designed for Christians - without some self-centered Christian popping up and saying "if their religion is getting stuff, I want more stuff, too!"

 

[Left Coast]

Slavery, which was changed, has nothing to do with what the Constitution still says to the imaginary "wall of separation between church and state" which doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Actually it is relevant, IMO. How we apply the principles laid out in the Constitution has changed over time, both relating to slavery and relating to religious freedom. Just because they were more theocratic back in the day is not a reason to continue being theocratic now.

If you actually want to argue that the concept of separation of church and state doesn't exist in the establishment clause, the Supreme Court has begged to differ for a very long time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually it is relevant, IMO. How we apply the principles laid out in the Constitution has changed over time, both relating to slavery and relating to religious freedom. Just because they were more theocratic back in the day is not a reason to continue being theocratic now.

If you actually want to argue that the concept of separation of church and state doesn't exist in the establishment clause, the Supreme Court has begged to differ for a very long time.

I agree. In his OP, @KenS basically argued that how Thomas Jefferson lived his life didn't square up with what we understand church-state separation to be. Well, Jefferson was a hypocrite in a lot of ways.

He brought forward a lot of good ideas and often failed to practice what he preached; just ask Sally Hemings.

 

[Kenny]

Actually it is relevant, IMO. How we apply the principles laid out in the Constitution has changed over time, both relating to slavery and relating to religious freedom. Just because they were more theocratic back in the day is not a reason to continue being theocratic now.

If you actually want to argue that the concept of separation of church and state doesn't exist in the establishment clause, the Supreme Court has begged to differ for a very long time.

Yes... court system has become a legislation from the bench. Not the original intent and certainly not correct.

The Constitution is changed by amending the Constitution and not by just arbitrarily changing it to one's desire.

If there is to be a change in the Constitution it has to be quantified in the Constitution. In that it isn't, what you have is a personal viewpoint versus actually what it says IMV

 

[Kenny]

I agree. In his OP, @KenS basically argued that how Thomas Jefferson lived his life didn't square up with what we understand church-state separation to be. Well, Jefferson was a hypocrite in a lot of ways.

He brought forward a lot of good ideas and often failed to practice what he preached; just ask Sally Hemings.

Not to mention... it actually isn't in the Constitution... a small but important detail

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not to mention... it actually isn't in the Constitution... a small but important detail

You haven't read the First Amendment, I take it.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes... court system has become a legislation from the bench. Not the original intent and certainly not correct.

But again, our understanding of the original intent has changed in many ways. The original intent allowed for states to have state churches. Is that what you want, Ken? Which church should be the established state church of Florida? If your answer is that FL shouldn't have one, then you understand the idea that our concept of what is constitutionally acceptable has changed and does change and that you're actually okay with that.

On guns, relating to the 2nd amendment, no arms existed when the founders wrote that amendment other than muskets. So ought the 2nd amendment only apply to those? If your answer is no, then you again understand that the application of the Constitution involves a more complicated reasoning process than "original intent."

The Constitution is changed by amending the Constitution and not by just arbitrarily changing it to one's desire.

This is a silly straw man, Ken. As you covered earlier in the thread, you're against straw men. Don't commit them yourself.

 

[Kenny]

You haven't read the First Amendment, I take it.

LOL... And I was thinking the same thing about you! Go figure.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Let's be honest here. How would you feel if public schools were to post passages from the Koran? Or how about a wall devoted to Buddhist teachings? Wouldn't you view that as the government foisting religious views from another religion upon you, who did not identify as a Muslim, or a Buddhist?

Then, following the golden rule that Jesus taught about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, do you think it's fair to post Christian religious teachings on the walls of public schools for those who are not Christians, such as little Buddhist children, or atheist children? Where is fairness here? Wouldn't it be best to just exclude all of them? I don't know how that can be answered any other way.


Again, asking you to be honest here, how would you feel if your local police force organized a prayer vigil, where they all pulled out their prayer mats, faced Mecca, and offered prayers to Allah?

Would you be okay with that? I fully suspect your answer would be no. Is it wrong for others to then not want government funded institutions, paid for with their own tax dollars, to set up Christian-based prayer vigils, when they are not part of that religion or believe in its views?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," means you have to put yourself in their shoes, and not just look at it from what you see as true only.


Again, how would you feel if those prayers were to Allah, or to the Buddha, or even to Lucifer if they were of that belief system?

It seems you are only offended if someone says they are uncomfortable with your religion, while you would in a heartbeat not accept it if it were from another religion that wasn't yours in that same situation, being funded by your tax dollars and representing that institutions values in a religious way.

Is that fair to atheists? Is that fair to Buddhists? Is that fair to Muslims? Is it only fair, when it's fair to Christians?


I see it as the truth of fairness to all in a pluralist society. Do you wish to force Christianity down the throats of others using the powers of government institutions ? How does that honestly reflect Christian values, I ask?

I was hoping Ken would answer this one.

 

[Kenny]

But again, the original intent has changed in many ways. The original intent allow for states to have state churches. Is that what you want, Ken?

Can you state where that is in the Constitution please?

On guns, relating to thr 2nd amendment, no arms existed when the founders wrote that amendment other than muskets. So ought the 2nd amendment only apply to those? If your answer is no, then you again understand that the application of the Constitution involves a more complicated reasoning process than "original intent."

I'm not sure how this is relevant. 2nd amendment is still relevant and is still enforced. What has changed?

This is a silly straw man, Ken. As you covered earlier in the thread, you're against straw men. Don't commit them yourself.

that would be another strawman

Tell me where it isn't changed by amending? Wasn't the elimination of slavery done by Constitution? Was women's suffrage changed by interpretation of the law or by amending the Constitution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

LOL... And I was thinking the same thing about you! Go figure.

So you just think you understand the First Amendment better than the Supreme Court. Gotcha.

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

 

[Left Coast]

Can you state where that is in the Constitution please?

All law isn't overtly stated in the Constitution, nor has it ever been since the beginning of the country. So your position that all law must be overtly written in the Constitution is simply incorrect.

At the time our nation was founded, states had official churches. It was not considered unconstitutional at the time. Do you think it is? What church should be Florida's state church?

I'm not sure how this is relevant. 2nd amendment is still relevant and is still enforced. What has changed?

The type of firearms covered by it. New technology has been invented that didn't exist in the 18th century. Are new arms still covered by the 2nd amendment, even though the founders didn't even know they'd exist? If the answer is yes, you comprehend the concept of changing constitutional interpretation and have no problem with it.

that would be another strawman

My pointing out that you're engaging in straw man is a straw man? Lol. I don't think you know what that means. You didn't use it correctly the first time, either.

Tell me where it isn't changed by amending? Wasn't the elimination of slavery done by Constitution? Was women's suffrage changed by interpretation of the law or by amending the Constitution.

Yes, amending the Constitution is the basic way that the Constitution is changed.

However, the interpretation of the Constitution also involves implicit ideas that are not overtly stated. The 2nd amendment was already mentioned. Another is the entire concept of judicial review, which was established in Marbury v. Madison. Another more recent example, which is a favorite of conservatives, is the concept of corporate personhood.