Separation of Church and State

[Odin]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
So apparently anyone religious is a fundy? Why no attack on Muslims? What religion is more restrictive on society, Islam or Christianity? You attack Christianity because it is at the heart of American culture. The attack on Christianity isn't an attack on the religion itself in most cases, rather it's an attack on traditional American values. If you were really attacking religion you wouldn't be singling out Christianity as you do and you would be going after the real threat which is Islam. Islam was making big gains in the US before 9/11 you know. Are you trying to tell me you'd rather have a majority nation of Muslims? The majority of the world will never be atheist so you better start deciding which religion you'd rather deal with.

I don't single out Christianity. I hate all fundies no matter what religion they are because they are against the values of the Enlightenment that this country was founded upon. I am not one of those PC nuts who are scared of critizing other cultures if I find them disgusting.

[Berzerker]

Dracon

My questions for now are, why was religion singled out as a special case in the 1st amendment, and why the Supreme court interpreted it as implying a "wall of separation" in 1947... which arguably is the real point of contention.

The Framers were extremely wary of giving any "church" the power of the state or any state the power of the church, i.e., mixing the two. They came from a culture where the result of mixing them was ~constant warfare triggered by power hungry kings and clerics. And people were often required to financially support the clergy, i.e., moneychangers. "Freethinkers" is how I'd describe them, even John Adams, devout Christian, said his religion is based solely on the sermon on the mount (and the Beatitudes I think).

IIUC the "wall of separation" is not necessarily implied in the wording of the clauses themselves, but is rather derived from extraneous documentation purporting to be the intent of the founders (namely Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists).
My third question is, is there a practical basis for such a separation being enforced, even if it is not implied in the literal wording of the clause?

True, but Jefferson and James Madison co-authored the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom which became the basis for the 1st Amendment. So even though critics of the "wall" like to point out how it came from Jefferson after the fact, he was hardly alone. Madison even opposed using money from the treasury to pay priests to come in and lead Congress in prayer (albeit not enough to block the practice).

Odin

Defacto establishment is just as coercive as establishment by law.

A manger scene is coercive?

Strict interpretation of a document written in the 1780's is utter stupidity, anyway (which is why I think we need a new constitution, so the libertarian morons quit using archaic language to further thier BS), since, if one interpreted the constitution literally the Federal Reserve, agencies like the FDA and FCC, and fiat currency are unconstitutional.

They aren't in the Constitution, thats a fact. If you want to change the Constitution, those "morons" who wrote it supplied a process for changing it. I wonder how much disdain you'd have for a "strict" interpretation of the 1st Amendment if the Feds were prosecuting you for expousing an evil ideology. And you claim to hold the enlightenment in high esteem while spitting on the people who helped transmit it to America?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Hmm, are you also a lying crooked meglomanic son of a former mob goon?

Or do the simularities stop at idealist?

Just idealist. (you forgot womanizing )

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

A manger scene is coercive?

No, but saying the Pledge of Allegence with "under God" in it is because even if you are not required to say it, you can be ridiculed and ostracized; it is also defacto establishment of Monotheism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
"Endorsement" is not the test in the 1st Amendment. Besides, the gov't isnt endorsing anything, private citizens paid for the display and put it up.

Frankly you can say the same for "Coercion". It just says no establishment... who says that equals coercion rather than endorsement, or perhaps neither apply?

You can't really chastize others for reading things in the document that aren't there when you do the same . It's all a matter of interpretation in the end.

[Berzerker]

No, but saying the Pledge of Allegence with "under God" in it is because even if you are not required to say it, you can be ridiculed and ostracized; it is also defacto establishment of Monotheism.

I said the manger scene is not coercive but the Pledge is coercive.

Frankly you can say the same for "Coercion". It just says no establishment... who says that equals coercion rather than endorsement, or perhaps neither apply?

Before religion can be "established" in violation of the 1st Amendment, a law must be involved. And laws are coercive... A manger scene may be viewed as an endorsement by some people, but no one is coerced and no law is involved. Is it a violation of the 1st Amendment when the Prez endorses Christianity? Of course not, so how can it be a violation when Joe and his buddies put up a manger scene? They aren't even in the gov't...

You can't really chastize others for reading things in the document that aren't there when you do the same . It's all a matter of interpretation in the end.

An endorsement of religion without a law does not establish anything. Y'all see what you consider an "endorsement" of religion but ignore the absence of a law respecting an establishment of religion. I dont do the same... If we took your argument to its logical conclusion, no one could wear religious symbols on public lands because that would be endorsing religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And laws are coercive... A manger scene may be viewed as an endorsement by some people, but no one is coerced and no law is involved.

What about if there is a law saying there will be a manger scene? Would that make it coercive to you then?

Kind of silly determinant of when something becomes coercive.

An endorsement of religion without a law does not establish anything.

Of course it does... Establishment is all about endorsing one religion over another. Think about it. The state declaring the episcopalian church to be the 'state church' would violate the establishment clause, even if there was no law.

And besides, the manger scene is coercive. It shows that you aren't of the 'favored' religion and if you want to be one of the big guys you gotta get with their beliefs.

[Bill3000]

Did I ever mention how Imran is my hero?

[ajbera]

I have to confess to being a bit disappointed with Imran's interpretation on this topic (though I really do respect him and his intellect.)

Putting up a manger scene and then saying no other religious group can put up a comparable scene is somewhat coercive, in that by denying representation to others it is effectively endorsing Christianity. But merely having a manger is coercive? Are there really people out there who are so sensitive and weak willed that any demonstration of a belief they don't share is coercion?

[StarLightDeath]

Are there really people out there who are so sensitive and weak willed that any demonstration of a belief they don't share is coercion?

Yes, they're called Muslims.

[Sava]

Muslims are leading the charge against public displays of religion in this country?

[ajbera]

I think one of the problems is that while people have the right to not be discriminated against, they mistakenly feel they have the right to never be offended.

[Odin]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath


Yes, they're called Muslims.

Yep, your a moron.

[Whaleboy]

Try not to get annoyed at StarLightDeath. Anyone who thinks that evolution is like a roll of the dice is to be pitied. His intellect is obviously so far gone it's futile exercise to explain anything in which he does not hold a religious belief.

[ajbera]

Well, to be fair, random change does indeed play a big part in evolution.