Separation of Church and State in U. S. Constitution?


Closed Thread
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
ThomasM is offline ThomasM Post #1  June 23,2010, 10:18am
ThomasM's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2009

Houston

Posts: 558

See profile

The article referenced in my thread on the Top 10 Creation Myths included the following: When the founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States, they chose to include the separation of church and state. This was to ensure that the state-sanctioned religious persecutions that plagued much of Europe during the 16th century would not despoil the young, yet grand experiment in democracy that was to become this Republic.

As I understand his response, Notyet took issue with: When the founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States, they chose to include the separation of church and state.

While the exact words separation of church and state do not appear in the document, I believe that was the overall meaning and intent of the founding fathers as written in the Constitution. I will give Notyet the opportunity to make his case as to why he disagrees. I plan to respond after Notyet presents his analysis.
 
 
lindseyk is offline lindseyk Post #2  June 23,2010, 10:41am

does not believe everything she reads.

Unregistered

Joined: Jan 2009

Ottawa, ON

Posts: 6,381

See profile

I too will await notyet's response, but I do have one question. Isn't what you believe to be the intent of the founding fathers based on your opinion, on your reading of document? Isn't that kind of the same as people reading Scripture? They see the intent of certain passages in a certain way - a way that others may disagree with? Doesn't it then follow that as you have a right to see the Constitution as you choose, others have a right to see it and/or Scripture as they choose?

I'm just curious and not looking to start a war. I'm also not American, so maybe I'm missing something here. Very possible. lol We don't debate the intent of our founding fathers much up here in Canada. We discuss the intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms instead - a much more recent document. It's a sensitive issue up here.

In any event, I'm looking forward to what notyet has to say and where this discussion will go. Please don't feel obligated to answer my questions either. I was just sort of thinking out loud, so to speak and I don't want to take this thread off-topic in the second post. The guidelines apply to me too.
 
 
ThomasM is offline ThomasM Post #3  June 23,2010, 11:01am
ThomasM's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2009

Houston

Posts: 558

See profile

lindseyk wrote :
I too will await notyet's response, but I do have one question. Isn't what you believe to be the intent of the founding fathers based on your opinion, on your reading of document? Isn't that kind of the same as people reading Scripture? They see the intent of certain passages in a certain way - a way that others may disagree with? Doesn't it then follow that as you have a right to see the Constitution as you choose, others have a right to see it and/or Scripture as they choose?
The Constitution, like the Bible, gets interpreted all the time. Like it or not, we do have a final authority of Constitutional interpretation - the U. S. Supreme Court.

I have said many, many times in my posts here that people have a right to choose their beliefs. From my perspective, it seems that those who come from a literalist/fundamentalist mindset seem to get the idea that people who disagree are somehow trying to negate their right to choose. That is not the case.

I respect your right to believe as you choose and ask the same of you. Nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs on anybody else. I am totally OK with a free and open exchange of ideas as here, and I am OK with people advocating a point of view.
 
 
lindseyk is offline lindseyk Post #4  June 23,2010, 11:54am

does not believe everything she reads.

Unregistered

Joined: Jan 2009

Ottawa, ON

Posts: 6,381

See profile

ThomasM wrote :
The Constitution, like the Bible, gets interpreted all the time. Like it or not, we do have a final authority of Constitutional interpretation - the U. S. Supreme Court.

I have said many, many times in my posts here that people have a right to choose their beliefs. From my perspective, it seems that those who come from a literalist/fundamentalist mindset seem to get the idea that people who disagree are somehow trying to negate their right to choose. That is not the case.

I respect your right to believe as you choose and ask the same of you. Nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs on anybody else. I am totally OK with a free and open exchange of ideas as here, and I am OK with people advocating a point of view.
I agree for the most part, although from my perspective there are those who are not of the fundamentalist/literalist or whatever else stripe who perhaps take a more liberal view or hold no religious beliefs whatsoever, who also seem to have the idea that any disagreement with their views negates their right to choose what they want to believe. This is not the case either.

In the same way that nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs on anybody, nobody should be forcing their non-belief or skepticism on anyone else either. None of us have any responsibility to convince anyone else of anything.
 
 
ursa is offline ursa Post #5  June 23,2010, 12:01pm
ursa's Avatar

has her paws full...

Quick Study

Joined: May 2010

England

Posts: 202

See profile

I am English and have never read the US Constitution. It has certainly been my understanding that the state and church were kept separate to allow religious freedom, which had certainly not been enjoyed by those who left these shores and sailed west, as they dissented from the Established Church of England.

As a member of the still-Established Church of England, it is interesting to note that over here there are those both in and outside the Church who would like to see it dis-Established.

Those outside, because its status as the official church is seen as giving it unfair and unwarranted influence in an effectively, if not officially, secular society.

Those in the Church who are in favour of dis-Establishment are so because they see the Church of England as having its religious freedom stifled by the government because of the Established status. Not for nothing are the other Protestant denominations sometimes referred to collectively as the "Free Churches"...

Me?

I think they're both right.
 
 
deistdreamer is offline deistdreamer Post #6  June 23,2010, 12:27pm
deistdreamer's Avatar

I WILL MISS YOU (XXXOOO)

Unregistered

Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 560

See profile

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

For the most part this has successfully with stood various Supreme Court challenges. What is really interesting, I think, is that at the time of Jefferson et al it was the non denominational or evangelical churches that sided with various secular forces that were most interested in this being the law of the land. Their fear was that one of the bigger State churces like the church of England or Catholicism would be forced on all citizens.

Separation of church and state is an idea that John Locke first wrote about and has since become the code by which we Americans govern ourselves: that is the government should not create or force any church or religion on its citizens and nor should any citizen be denied the right to believe what he or she chooses to believe about the deity.
 
 
deistdreamer is offline deistdreamer Post #7  June 23,2010, 12:40pm
deistdreamer's Avatar

I WILL MISS YOU (XXXOOO)

Unregistered

Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 560

See profile

ursa wrote :
I am English and have never read the US Constitution. It has certainly been my understanding that the state and church were kept separate to allow religious freedom, which had certainly not been enjoyed by those who left these shores and sailed west, as they dissented from the Established Church of England.

As a member of the still-Established Church of England, it is interesting to note that over here there are those both in and outside the Church who would like to see it dis-Established.

Those outside, because its status as the official church is seen as giving it unfair and unwarranted influence in an effectively, if not officially, secular society.

Those in the Church who are in favour of dis-Establishment are so because they see the Church of England as having its religious freedom stifled by the government because of the Established status. Not for nothing are the other Protestant denominations sometimes referred to collectively as the "Free Churches"...

Me?

I think they're both right.
I suspect that those who will object to the ideals behind separation of State and Church will do so on the grounds that America was always a Christian nation and that it is recent attempts by various secular bad guys who are trying to overthrow this former relationship.

It is a serious misreading of history and constitutional law to reach these conclusions. What the founding fathers clearly were trying to do as their correspondence show was to avoid all the ills of the old world with its official religions and along with state sponsored religious persecution of those who did not belong to the State sanctioned religion.

The Founders were a divided lot when it came to religion their numbers included agnostics, a likely atheist, pantheists and sorted deist types and of course Christians of various stripes. But what they believed does not matter much. The first Amendment did two things and did it well the State would no longer be in the business of deciding winners and losers among the religious and the state would not stop you or me from worshiping or not as we pleased.

What they could not see was contentious issues like prayer or bible reading in school. But that is why we have a court system that in spite of all its faults helps adjudicate these sorts of questions while being guided by various constitutional documents including many of which originated in England.

The opponents mostly conservative Christians are convinced that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. The courts have largely decided otherwise and this has left groups feeling picked on because they believe it is their right to force everyone to read from their holy book and pray to their God. And so the battle goes on...
Last edited by deistdreamer; June 23,2010 at 12:47pm.
 
 
deistdreamer is offline deistdreamer Post #8  June 23,2010, 1:04pm
deistdreamer's Avatar

I WILL MISS YOU (XXXOOO)

Unregistered

Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 560

See profile

lindseyk wrote :
In the same way that nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs on anybody, nobody should be forcing their non-belief or skepticism on anyone else either. None of us have any responsibility to convince anyone else of anything.
The problem with this notion is that all too often religionists claim it is their right to force a religious belief like, say, being homosexual is a sin on the body politic. If you simply went to your churches and listened to your preachers tell you that gay men are bad or abominations it is not likely that anyone in the free thinking community would be upset or try to stop your preacher from preaching this sort of thing.

But when you choose to politically organize and use the powers of the State to force your religious views on other citizens you will be contested. And this should neither surprise you or anger you. When you leave the sanctuary of your churches and step into the political arena you can no longer claim that others must respect or tolerate your religious beliefs.

Beyond this I am not too sure what your concerns might be. If it is that we get debates here and elsewhere in the world over whether God exists or the Bible is a book of fables or God's revelations or whether Jesus is God or Lord, I can't really see how this stops you or others from believing what you want. I suppose if you don't want someone to criticize your beliefs the best way is to keep them to yourself or only hang out with those who share your beliefs.

Secularism properly understood does not in any way interfere with your right to be religious. A true secularists should never stop someone from wearing a burkha or a crucifix or from choosing three wives or wearing 19th century clothing or refusing to fight in wars. Secularists should allow all to express their religious beliefs and allow any one who doesn't want anything to do with God or gods to do so as well. They should also allow critics to mock your gods or favorite beliefs and to offer protection to the dissenters.

A secularist would protect your right to teach your child to pray at home or in your churches but also protect the rights of all children to not have to pray in a public school or at home or anywhere else.

Secularism is not the enemy of churched people. The enemy is State sponsored religions or State sponsored atheism. The secular state must protect your rights to be religious and the rights of those who don't want religion in their lives. The dividing line must always be the tips of our noses and our neighbors noses.
Last edited by deistdreamer; June 23,2010 at 1:07pm.
 
 
lindseyk is offline lindseyk Post #9  June 23,2010, 1:40pm

does not believe everything she reads.

Unregistered

Joined: Jan 2009

Ottawa, ON

Posts: 6,381

See profile

I am not trying to impose my views on anyone, nor have I ever made use of the political system to do so. All I was trying to convey is that just as no Christian should impose their beliefs on anyone else, so no non-believer should impose their unbelief on believers. We can disagree with each other without it turning into a battle about people's right to believe what they like. Not every disagreement is about an infringement upon one's rights - on either side.

That's what I was trying to convey, but clearly did not achieve. I did not mean to imply that some Christians and Christian organizations do not use the political system to forward their views. Some do. There are also some who do not. In the same way, there are some secular groups who do use the political system to discriminate against Christians and there are some who do not.

Sadly, discrimination is an equal-opportunity venture.
 
 
deistdreamer is offline deistdreamer Post #10  June 23,2010, 1:54pm
deistdreamer's Avatar

I WILL MISS YOU (XXXOOO)

Unregistered

Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 560

See profile

lindseyk wrote :
I am not trying to impose my views on anyone, nor have I ever made use of the political system to do so. All I was trying to convey is that just as no Christian should impose their beliefs on anyone else, so no non-believer should impose their unbelief on believers. We can disagree with each other without it turning into a battle about people's right to believe what they like. Not every disagreement is about an infringement upon one's rights - on either side.

That's what I was trying to convey, but clearly did not achieve. I did not mean to imply that some Christians and Christian organizations do not use the political system to forward their views. Some do. There are also some who do not. In the same way, there are some secular groups who do use the political system to discriminate against Christians and there are some who do not.

Sadly, discrimination is an equal-opportunity venture.
lindseyk, I always seem to wind up conveying some message to you that wasn't my intended message. I didn't have any intention of scolding you or labeling you or pass any kind of judgment on you.

From the little I know of you here I think you are a really good person and I am sure you are a true woman of God.

I don't know I just don't seem to succeed in communicating with you. But again I really wasn't challenging you or judging you in any way,

I am sorry it came across that way and now I must get going or I will lose my job!!!

Peace. Really!!
 
 
Closed Thread


« What does it mean: To Believe? What is: A Believer? … Mind/body duality. | Christian Singles | Christian Men vs Non Christian Men... is there a difference? »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Church Says No Sex: She Says Yes To Sex abjon Christian Singles 365 June 25,2010 8:00pm
Catholic Priests Blackmailing Congressmen DennisWisconsin Atheists, Humorists, and Science 16 December 6,2009 12:25pm
Atheist Issues of the Day DennisWisconsin Atheists, Humorists, and Science 90 August 4,2009 4:52pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Excellent, thank you. I think I will leave out the first part, I think it is unnecessary information to give him. I'm not interested in putting myself out there like that and it might be a little ... ” –  generallyyou

Join the “Ending a friendship” discussion

“Alfred Hitchcock - 18 Steven Spielberg - 62 *notice what?” –  dmi

Join the “War of the Directors” discussion

“ I would be "certain people" :P The issue isn't a deal-breaker, but a very strong factor preference-wise, for me.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “How much does race play in your dating someone?” discussion

“Love Texas Hold'em!.. I'm thinking of trying another tournament this summer...not sure yet though.. Never entered a tournament before, outside of online ones. Personally I prefer to play with ... ” –  Freezepop

Join the “Favorite Card Game” discussion

“Make that 3! I also had a crush on Donny Osmond. I think I still have a record or two of his. Suzie ” –  legend29

Join the “Robin Gibbs Dead at 62...How Deep is Your Love?” discussion

“Oh, my revised profile can be seen in the forum in the section where you can ask for a profile review. Suzanne” –  SuzanneScorpio

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“Just remember, everything that you are feeling and/or are capable of he is as well. If he wanted to reach you, he could. Right now he knows that you are hurting, and that this is not what you ... ” –  lynntlb78

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“ Yohio. And the shortened form (Anya) is nice too.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “Where is Becky?!?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:39am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0