Separation of Church and State

[Dracon II]

Can people point me towards good perspectives/books/opinions/websites regarding S.C.S.? Preferably both for and against.

[SlowwHand]

Separation of Church and State was intended to keep government from endorsing any one particular religion. It's doesn't say religious references have to be abandoned.

Read the Constitution and interpret it for yourself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sloww... you are an idiot. What makes you think he was talking ONLY abotu the US?

[Zkribbler]

I'm sure you meant to say, "Sloww you have not not considered the natter as thoroughly as you might have. "

[Dracon II]

Well... I am thinking of the US. That's where the term originated. I already know a fair amount about Australia's system (not much to say about it really... we don't really have separation like the US developed).

[Dracon II]

"Congress shall not establish religion or prevent the free exercize thereof"

It refers to religion in general when speaking against establishment. It doesn't say "establish any religion" like the Australian constitution. Doesn't that suggest that the constitution prohibits the State from making reference to anything religious? It depends on your definition of establishment. In America it's been defined fairly broadly.

[Zkribbler]

Or more precisely:

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.

[Berzerker]

Sloww... you are an idiot. What makes you think he was talking ONLY abotu the US?

Well... I am thinking of the US. That's where the term originated.

I suspect most of us made Slow's (reasonable) assumption given how many times we've discussed the separation of church and state in Fiinland

Congress shall make no law - before religion can be "established" in violation of the 1st Amenedment, a law must be passed. Congress, and by extension of the 14th Amendment, the states, cannot compel or coerce us into acting on behalf of religion, i.e., somebody else's religion (presumably the majority's religion).

2 examples:

The Pledge of Allegiance employs coercion to compel children to pledge allegiance to the flag (idolatry to some) and all that it represents - one nation, under God. This violates the establishment clause...

A manger scene - on public land of course. Since our taxes are spent on all sorts of crap that isn't the Constitution, its a bit absurd for people to complain (unless they're libertarian ) if their city guv pays to put a manger scene up. But this still violates the establishment clause since taxes are enacted by law and one of Jefferson's big gripes about religion was forced or coerced financial support. But if the manger scene is privately funded, thats fine. The fact it is on public land is irrelevant, the scene does not force or coerce me to do anything.

[Berzerker]

Oh yeah, here in Kansas we have a blue law that prohibits alcohol sales on Sunday except for golf courses and certain facilities like for sporting events. That violates the 1st Amendment (and I understand Kansas will be changing that soon).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But if the manger scene is privately funded, thats fine. The fact it is on public land is irrelevant, the scene does not force or coerce me to do anything.

Not so fast! Permitting manger scenes on public grounds implies government imprimatur of Christianity.

The Supreme Court has said that it is only when the manger scene in mixed with other traditional holiday symbols that Jesus Christ has no more religious significance than a snowman or candy cane.

[Vince278]

In Lititz, Pennsylvania part of the town square is owned by a local church which puts up a manger scene every Christmas. This came about when someone from out of town made a complaint and the town answered by selling that tiny part of its land to the church.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suspect most of us made Slow's (reasonable) assumption given how many times we've discussed the separation of church and state in Fiinland

I may have been incorrect, but saying it is reasonable to look at a topic of "Seperation of Church and State" and believe it only applies to the US is utterly ludicrious. Every society has issues with it and we have discussed it with respect to Scandinavian state churches and the Islamic world.

[SlowwHand]

Well, jerkwad, did he specify? No, then I'll answer from my perspective on the constitution I'm familiar with, and frankly the only one I care about. Unlike some people who shoot their mouth off about things of which they have no baseline of knowledge, just opinions based off MTV, CNN, and their fraternity late night drunk sessions.
So take that and stuff it up your ass.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So if he didn't specify just assume he meant your own Constitution and suggest he read that? Especially since he asked for perspectives and books?! If he wanted general views on the whole issue, he should read the vagaries of the US Constitution which created the whole mess in the US where no one is sure what the wordage means?

What kind of ****ing advice is that?

[Bill3000]

I sort of agree. This thread was not meant to be a debate on the Seperation of Church and State - it was meant to be a place to find out where can you see the various debates on it.