Separation of Church and State

[Q Classic]

You know, I was wondering why I read Imran's comment about the vagaries of the US Constitution as "vaginas of the US Constitution".

Then it hit me.

They're cockfighting, and in a pissing match.

Oh, and those founding persons who didn't like religion? ****ing pussies.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Bill3000
This thread was not meant to be a debate on the Seperation of Church and State

That was inevitable.

[Bill3000]

It was, but it does not mean that it had to happen in an idealistic world.

[Vince278]

Like my avatar, I am an idealist as well. Unfortunately, realism can rear its ugly head from time to time.

[Berzerker]

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

Doesn't matter, to "establish" religion a law must be passed requiring others to act in accordance with that religion. Manger scenes require no law and they do not compel or coerce me to do anything.

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.

What if no one else puts up a snowman or candy cane? The SCOTUS is a group of political hacks in black robes who make sh*t up out if ideology or political expediency to bypass the Constitution.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Doesn't matter, to "establish" religion a law must be passed requiring others to act in accordance with that religion. Manger scenes require no law and they do not compel or coerce me to do anything.

Some say it gives the appearence of endorsement. In my Lititz example above they also put out a menorah during Hanukah. Nothing Islamic yet however. I wonder what displays are appropriate to that religion?

[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.

[Flip McWho]

I agree with Berzerker. Unless of course the Government doesn't let a privately funded religious display go up. If it's good enough for one religion it's good enough for all.

[Dracon II]

I'm not concerned with this thread becoming a debate, nor a debate about the US situation. I actually did have the USA in mind.

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. 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?

[Odin]

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.

Defacto establishment is just as coercive as establishment by law. 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.

[StarLightDeath]

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?

Actually we are sure what it means, it's just that idiots and muslims like you are trying to interpret it in a way that removes Christianity from sight. It's a war on American culture and you're losing so shut up. Sloww was perfectly in line to answer in the manner he did. If you don't like it then maybe you should go live in the middle east where they have a true separation of church and state.

[Odin]

Funny that an athiest is defending the fundies.

[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.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Vince278
Like my avatar, I am an idealist as well. Unfortunately, realism can rear its ugly head from time to time.

Hmm, are you also a lying crooked meglomanic son of a former mob goon?

Or do the simularities stop at idealist?

[StarLightDeath]

Some say it gives the appearence of endorsement. In my Lititz example above they also put out a menorah during Hanukah. Nothing Islamic yet however. I wonder what displays are appropriate to that religion?

Severed heads and hands work nicely so that the devout may properly observe the law of god at work.