A theory on the Church/State question.

[JB]

I give a lot of thought to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote it, and the Amendments.<br /><br />One of the things that brought many of our forefathers to this country was religious persecution, if you weren't an Anglican in England your goose was cooked, then fed to the Anglicans. (Joke, friends, just a joke.) If you weren't a Catholic in many places the same held true. Even today, non-Christians suffer discrimination, not to mention Jews.<br /><br />Our leaders then were from a variety of Christian and Jewish churches, with a very few agnostics and atheists in the fringes.<br /><br />Could it be that they wanted to protect all Christian and Jewish denominations from one of them being declared a State religion, as in England? <br /><br />Because all Jews and all Christians agree on who God is, and pretty much on every other important question except the divinity of Jesus, could they have agreed that "In God we trust" and the Ten Commandments were pretty universal and did not state a religious preference? You don't find Jesus, one of the things Jews and Christians don't agree on, mentioned anywhere in these documents.<br /><br />What then, of the agnostics and the atheists? Were they simply over-ruled or did they not care?<br /><br />They assumed a lot of things that we reject today. They assumed that "all men" were adult, white, male landowners. They assumed it was okay for human beings to be capital property of other human beings (adult, white male landowners), that women didn't have the temperament to be voting citizens, and a lot of other stuff. All of that was in their traditions and their culture.<br /><br />In the 200+ years since then we have redefined a lot of their definitions and assumptions. Our culture has changed immensely and is still changing. <br /><br />Not all of us are pleased with the changes as they happen, but in my lifetime revolutionary changes that stirred a lot of discontent have become sacred traditions. Now we look back and ask how we could ever have supported the old ways.<br /><br />I think this is a relevant thought about our current quarrels over the Church/State seperation.<br /><br />Just as a sidebar, Church/State seperation was one of the primary issues that triggered the Texas revolution against Mexico. When Texas was a Mexican province you had to be a Mexican citizen to own land, and you had to be a Catholic to be a Mexican Citizen. Texans were overwhelmingly previously US citizens.

 

[NathanY]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Is this a troll? Just kidding JB.<br /><br />I dont believe in seperation of church and state, because the constitution does not say it.<br /><br />

Article VI<br />Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment I<br />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.

Can anyone explain to me where this says SEPERATION ?

 

[Laddies]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

JB, I think that our forefathers were not saying there is no place in goverment for religion, but that the goverment should not mandate it most left England to escape it and did not want our goverment to take over were the English had left off. By the 1600 the Puritans of the Mass. Bay colony was perescuting Quakers to the point that most Quakers came to Virginia rather than risk the Mass. colony, funny how that works isn't it--Bob

 

[12Footer]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

The actual wording of the Constitution, just as the actual wording within the Bible, is all the purina lawyer chow our form of government gaurantees. It's an unfortunate side-effect of trying to be inclusive of "all men"....Note, that one of the "issues" most prevailant at the time of the original penning of the Constitution, as of yet, unammended document were the rights granted to women and slaves. They were still popularlly-considered "not-equal" to "men". I personally don't think "all men", therefore, was a typo. Important to your question? Let's just say, it's contributory to opinion, maybe.<br />What of the "original penning" of the Bible?<br />How many "translations" have the Scriptures undergone over the ages?<br />Who is to say, what a circa 3000 Constitution would be like?<br />We rely on the executive and legislative branches to make the laws, and idelogically, depend upon the judicial to uphold them. This branch is currently disfunctional IMHO, JB.<br /><br />I'm refering to the ongoing persecution Christians are still receiving to this day. It may be in the form of PROSecution, and called "constitutional" somehow. But call it what it is, JB..."PERSecution".<br /><br />Becuase of this, we can take a lesson away from the last election's results, and see the effect of a representative republic. America is of and by (and therfore, for) the people. The "people" consisting souly of those people who vote. The rest of "Americans" simply are not represented, unless thru the compassion of a majority of those people who voted.<br />The religious faith of the voter is errelevant, eccept when religious percecution, iether real, or persceived by the majority of voting people, is placed before the legislative,executive,or judicial microscope.<br />Man does not dictate what an American's religion is to be, qand never will--likewise, no atheist will dictate abcensenc of God in American freedoms.<br />The ilegal ruling we have seen lately, pertaining to the word "God" in the official pledge of Allegiance, will be overturned. This is because the judges ruled-against current law as spelled-out legislatively,and by dictates within the Constitution. Granted, they saw fit to ignore that other cornerstone document to come-up with their "findings".<br />So it's obvious, that this travesty will not stand up to the scrutiny of the "rule of law".<br />And their obstruction against Bush's nominees is popularilly-seen for just what it is too.<br />There will be reprocussions from this as time goes on, that may even seem to be penned by Torquemada, if we are not vigialant. <br />The fact that the attacks upon religious freedoms lately have come from the judicial branch, should scare anyone who did not directly-vote for judges.It simply is not representative of the people, as we were gauranteed. It scares me,for one....sort of a "last hurrah" for the biased, currupt Ninth Circus, and other judicial venues supposedly representing Americans.<br />Some rights will never change in our reresentative form of government, because they are and always will be "popular". What we must also remain vigialant of, is the ever-present corruption and subversion of the rule of law --- that's the law as it passes-thru the American animal...legislated, executed and judged-upon law.<br />What comes out the other end depends souly upon the people it represents....As the branches keep shafting them (US), and they (WE) will change things legislatively and executively, until we are represnted judicially too.

 

[JB]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

My only mention of the word "seperation" is in referring to the quarrel and to the Mexican law of the 1830s, Nate.<br /><br />Now you guys are making me feel that logical thinking is liberal thinking. I thought conservatives believed that only conservatives think logically. Liberals are supposed to think emotionally, but I am seeing more emotion from the right here.<br /><br />Let's hear how you would think logically (or feel, if you are so inclined) about "In Buddha we trust" or "One nation, under Mother Nature. . . ."

 

[DJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

JB Wrote:<br /><br />

They assumed a lot of things that we reject today. They assumed that "all men" were adult, white, male landowners. They assumed it was okay for human beings to be capital property of other human beings (adult, white male landowners), that women didn't have the temperament to be voting citizens, and a lot of other stuff. All of that was in their traditions and their culture.<br />

So, that makes ALL assumptions bogus?<br /><br />They assumed allot of things based upon past writings and traditions.<br /><br />That does NOT assume there is no higher power.<br /><br />I assume that I will be persecuted for my beliefs. Am I wrong? <br /><br />I don't think so. I raise the nonsense with the Boy Scouts as a PERFECT example.<br /><br />Faith/Belief, whatever you want to call it, are better related to as STANDARDS for civilized life. I am not perfect, but I am on a journey.

 

[JB]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

No, DJ. I do not assert that all assumptions are bogus.<br /><br />I think you would agree that what is true was, is and will always be true, regardless of what men believe and regardless of what changes occur in what men believe.<br /><br />I do not challenge men's beliefs, only men's behavior. I do not think belief or disbelief are conscious choices; I think they are formed by a rational portion of our brains that evaluates what we experience and draws conclusions that are beliefs. New experience can modify or change those conclusions, but I believe that the phrase, "Choose to believe" is psychological nonsense..<br /><br />I agree that organized religion is a civilizing influence, but it has historically also been an influence for unspeakable evil.<br /><br />I am not arguing for or against any belief. I am questioning why our Constitution forbade the making of laws that establish a state religion and whether laws requiring references to God and The Bible in numerous official ways amount to establishing the Judeo-Christian religious tradition as a state religion.<br /><br />Please don't go looking for a hole to fit this peg into. I don't fit.

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

JB,<br /><br />Good thread. Hope there can be more good discussion.<br /><br />

Originally posted by JB:<br /> I think you would agree that what is true was, is and will always be true, regardless of what men believe and regardless of what changes occur in what men believe.<br />

Man, I sure hope so, but there are definitely those that would like to revisit your description of what IS is.<br /><br />

Originally posted by JB:<br /> I do not challenge men's beliefs, only men's behavior.

IMHO this is ALL that ultimately matters. Behavior. We want people, churches and goverment that behave properly, so . . . who gets to define what that is? I believe it is very important for ALL to understand that there is no definition of proper behavior without some reference to religion. Where would a non-religion based defintion come from? Who gets to decide? Many will react by saying that good and bad are just obvious and logical. I belive that those things are only obvious because we have mostly been brought up learning what were originally religious based teachings. It is primarily this specific issue that leads me to defend religious references in public displays and documents. This concept will be completely lost if the ACLU is allowed to help us run this country.<br /><br />

Originally posted by JB:<br /> I agree that organized religion is a civilizing influence, but it has historically also been an influence for unspeakable evil.

Evil acts commited by evil men under the name of religion does not make religion evil (I know you did not say this). It only confirms that those individuals are evil. Without some sort of definition of evil we could not label them as such.

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by TexasNate:<br /><br />I dont believe in seperation of church and state, because the constitution does not say it.<br /><br /><br />Amendment I<br />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.<br /><br />Can anyone explain to me where this says SEPERATION ?

the phrase "separation of church and state came from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, who spoke of the first amendment as creating "a wall of separation between church and state." <br /><br />The writings of the framers are significant when differences of opinion as to the meaning of the constitution come before the supreme court for interpretation.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Perhaps they thought that in order to get this constitution passed quickly, they allowed slavery, and didnt recognize women.<br /><br />They didnt want to have to waste time on these items as they knew many would fight them.<br /><br />They figured, once they get the country going, they could go back and correct the mistakes.<br /><br />But they didnt put anything about removing all forms of religion from the government. They just stated the government can't establish a government run church, and then require you to go to it.<br /><br />Ken

 

[PW2]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

>Quote<br />ALL to understand that there is no definition of proper behavior without some reference to religion. <br />>Quote<br /><br />What does this mean???<br /><br />There certainly is a definition of proper behavior--They are called laws. And all have to follow them, godless and god fearing alike.<br /><br />The fact that some laws of religion happen to be compatible with the laws of a functioning society is coincidence only.

 

[JB]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Well, KIZ, I agree that the framers intended the Constitution to be a dynamic entity, to be refined, amended and reinterpreted over time.<br /><br />Isn't that what the quarrel is about? Refining interpretation?<br /><br />The term "State Religion" does not imply a state run church, it implies a state definition of truth in a territory where truth is unknown, but merely believed. The problem is that belief ranges over a wide spectrum including many that firmly disagree with that state definition.<br /><br />The state position on religion is currently that Judeo-Christian traditions are the truth, to the exclusion of all other beliefs about what is true.<br /><br />What IS true is unaffected by this position or by the quarrel about it.

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> >Quote<br />ALL to understand that there is no definition of proper behavior without some reference to religion. <br />>Quote<br /><br />What does this mean???<br /><br />There certainly is a definition of proper behavior--They are called laws. And all have to follow them, godless and god fearing alike.

PW, give me one example of a basic law that does not have its root in religion. I didn't say that you have to be religious to follow a law. I said and stand by that religious principles are at the root of all basic laws. No, religion didn't lead to CA banning smoking in all public places, but the basic defintions of right and wrong are religious in ORIGIN. Please don't get hung up on interpreting this as you have to be religious to be lawful. Not what I said, not what I mean.<br /><br />Frankly, I belive that without religion, there is no definition of right and wrong.<br /><br />

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> The fact that some laws of religion happen to be compatible with the laws of a functioning society is coincidence only.

This is just plain stupid. Fear of some sort of divine punishment is behind even caveman rules. Do you honestly think that some civilization exists that began totally aethiestically and they sat down with a clean sheet of paper and dreamed up new laws? "George, do you think murder should be on the list?" "Well not sure, have you tried prime rib of man? Tasty!!" "Hmmmm, OK, let's take that one up in committee."<br /><br />Think about it, that's where all the concern about the defintion of marriage comes from too. Who gets to decide what's OK. If marriage can be between a man and a man, what about a man and two men? Why is that not OK? OK, maybe it is OK, then what about a man and a sheep? Preposterous? Why?<br /><br />PW, I am sure you're gonna glean from this that I am a bible thumper. Whether I am or not is not the point. The point is that without some belief that there is a higher authority who defines right and wrong? Is it purely left up to man's personal definitions? Hitler convinced a LOT of people that his version was correct

 

[Pony]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Quietcat- Well said.<br /><br />To begin with I am a practicing Roman Catholic, but that in and of itself is neither her nor there.<br /><br />To begin with there were Three seperate groups that settled the original 13 colonies. Investors/Entreprenuers who brought with them indentured servants and eventually slaves, The Puritans (Pilgrims or seperatists), The Puritans (Mass Bay colony). Those who occupied Virginia founded it strictly for monetary and capitalistic gains. <br /><br />As for the Puritans....was it the fact that The Church of England after Elizabeth I's reign was no longer tolereant of those who refused to conform, or was it that they just plain saw the Church of England as corupt and too Roman Catholic???<br /><br />I tend to believe that the Pilgrims were more or less those that left because of religious persecution, and that the Puritans that founded the Mass Bay colony (led by John Winthrop) simply left for the despise of the church itself. This is of itself important because it is from the second group not the first that the concept of seperation of Church and State stems from.<br /><br />These Puritans were essentialy Calvanists, and felt that the Church of England remained too Roman Catholic ofter the Protestant reformation. Although they didnt let the ministry become involved in their democracy, they did this mainly so that the ministry wouldnt become corrupt. Essentialy they had a theocracy. To vote you had to be a member of the Puritan Church, and although all people regardless of creed were taxed, it only went to support the Puritan Church. This is essentially where Laddies is coming from in his post. Some of those that founded this country were hypocrits in that they based their "government" on religion just as much if not more than the Church of England did. <br /><br />It is from this that Roger Williams dissented with Anne Hutchinson and founded Rhode Island (religious exiles from the Puritan's Mass Bay colony). William's is the first in History to formulate the idea of the seperation of Church and State, and even imposed that the colonies compensate the Native Americans for land.<br /><br /><br />-I know that was boring but I felt it important to see the backround the founding father's had some 130 years after Rhode Island was founded. Its not quite as simple as the colonies didn't like the Church of England and were exiles from that form of government, because they did the same thing when they came here

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br /> I believe it is very important for ALL to understand that there is no definition of proper behavior without some reference to religion. <br />

I disagree; a society will decide what is proper. Atheistic communist regimes have laws. Cannabalistic heathen tribes have codes of conduct, whether or not codified as "laws." We have a lot of laws that are completely unrelated to religion. Laws exist to aid society; surely you don't think that no one would have figured out that murder is bad for society if God hadn't put it in the 10 commandments. How did we decide to impose speed limits?<br /><br /><br />

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br /><br />It is primarily this specific issue that leads me to defend religious references in public displays and documents.

The head of the Anglican church was (still is?) the reigning English monarch; in fact all the European kings & queens claimed their thrones on the basis of devine appointment, their authority to govern came directly from God.<br /><br />We don't believe that is true; we claim that the authority to govern must come from the governed. <br /><br />This is my primary argument against.<br /><br />

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br /><br />Frankly, I belive that without religion, there is no definition of right and wrong.

I do agree with you there.<br /><br /><br />[Interesting note: the 10 commandment monuments at most courthouses were provided free of charge by the producers of the Charleton Heston movie, as a promotion - how's that for irony?]

 

[DJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

JB wrote:<br /><br />

I think they are formed by a rational portion of our brains that evaluates what we experience and draws conclusions that are beliefs. New experience can modify or change those conclusions, but I believe that the phrase, "Choose to believe" is psychological nonsense..<br /><br />I agree that organized religion is a civilizing influence, but it has historically also been an influence for unspeakable evil.<br />

Call me: nonsensical. <br /><br />Who said anything about "organized religion"?<br /><br />Organized religion sickens me, it is more about the organization than "Faith". On that point, we agree.<br /><br />

but it has historically also been an influence for unspeakable evil.

And "non" religious sects been given a "pass"? Germany and Japan, in the late thirties, come to mind-only to start a very long list of truly disgusting behavior that we only tolerate-today...

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

JB, what it all boils down to is, a majority christian country wants to be able to claim they are a nation under god, and in god they trust.<br /><br />How could that oppress anyone?<br /><br />No one is forcing people to recite the pledge.<br /><br />No one is forcing people to read the money.<br /><br />These are just some statements that reflect the our heritage and values.<br /><br />Also, if there is a constitutional amendment that banishes all relgious references from the governement, I will abide by it.<br /><br />But somehow trying to interpret the 1st amendement to do just that is wrong.<br /><br />Ken

 

[DJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Also, if there is a constitutional amendment that banishes all relgious references from the governement, I will abide by it.<br />

I won't, because it's based on bogus information.<br /><br />The terms: "seperation of church and state" appear NOWHERE in the constitution.<br /><br />This whole falicy is based on an obscure letter.

 

[Pony]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Orinally posted by jtexas<br />

<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Originally posted by Quietcat:<br />I believe it is very important for ALL to understand that there is no definition of proper behavior without some reference to religion. <br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I disagree; a society will decide what is proper. Atheistic communist regimes have laws. Cannabalistic heathen tribes have codes of conduct, whether or not codified as "laws." We have a lot of laws that are completely unrelated to religion. Laws exist to aid society; surely you don't think that no one would have figured out that murder is bad for society if God hadn't put it in the 10 commandments. How did we decide to impose speed limits?<br /><br />quote:<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Originally posted by Quietcat:<br /><br />Frankly, I belive that without religion, there is no definition of right and wrong.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I do agree with you there.

jtexas, how is this possible. you agree that without religion there is no definition of right and wrong, but then also say that society can deem what is appropriate behavior without religion.......those two ideas counter each other don't they. <br /><br />Yes there are laws that arent necessarily religiously based like taxation and speed limits......but I think Ouietcat was prolly refering to laws that have some moral value to them (at least i percieved it that way)

 

[JB]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Actually, DJ, I view sects and cults as religious. Certainly not religious in the sense that they agree with other religions about truths, but those other religions don't agree on a lot either. At one time Christianity was viewed as a cult. In some places it still is.<br /><br />The unspeakable evils I had in mind were inflicted by Christian missionaries on the cultures of native Americans and Hawaii, though there are other examples. They believed that they were doing God's work, or at least that's what they claimed.<br /><br />The Japanese in the 30s and 40s believed they were doing the Emperor's bidding and that the Emperor was divine (a God). That, in my eyes is in the name of organized religion.<br /><br />I don't think I can say that about the Nazi. I know Germans to be a pretty religious people, but I can find no claim to divine guidance by the Nazi.<br /><br />Osama Bin Laden has made it pretty clear that he believes his Jihad to be directed by Allah.<br /><br />I see all that as irrelevant to the real question, though. It is not about whose truth is the true truth (if any), it is about whether our Constitution allows the government to pay deference to one set of truths to the exclusion of all others.