Wow, where to begin. So deny the fact that Jesus was even born huh LOL. Christianity covers 1 religion--that's rich. Tell that to Catholics, Protestants, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist etc...You are the perfect example of Liberalism gone to the extreme. Bottom line, they were against 1 forced religion---there isn't 1.
Separation of church and state a "lie" according to Katherine Harris
- Thread starter Redworm
- Start date
- Status
Not denying it but his existence is still questioned by historians. It's a bit more difficult to claim that MLK didn't exist, don't you think? I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate on the existence of jesus but the manger scene is still representative of the biblical construct of his birth, not a historical account.
All of which believe in Christ as the son of god. That's what Christianity is.
Not saying there's any forced religion at all but to think that the founders only wanted to make sure that a single religion didn't take over and would have been prefectly fine with two or more forced religions is absurd.
All of which believe in Christ as the son of god. That's what Christianity is.
Oh so half a dozen forced religions would be ok?
Not saying there's any forced religion at all but to think that the founders only wanted to make sure that a single religion didn't take over and would have been prefectly fine with two or more forced religions is absurd.Wild Bill Bucks
New member
On the original thought, I think Harris was wrong to say what she did, because I know a lot of good moral people who don't proclaim to be christians. If they were in office, I don't think they would promote sin any better or worse than a christian.
What suprises me more about this subject is that many people let something like a manger scene, or In God We Trust, on our currency, effect them so bad. I see things that offend me all the time, like someone burning my flag, or a KKK cross, or police officers being called pigs, or people who think that ALL politicians aren't liars. All kinds of things offend us, but I think every time I get offended, about the boys we have around the world who are dying, to defend those peoples right, to offend me.
The seperation of church and state has never been a viable thought, since religious faith is based in the heart, and who really knows whats in the heart of a politician. Our elected officials can't possibly make rules and laws for the rest of us to follow, without having some kind of personal feelings about what they are doing.
I agree that taxpayers money should not be used to promote any religion, but christians pay taxes to, so the argument could be made that they have as much right to see where their tax money goes as the next person.
Being in business I have come to the realization that you don't talk politics or religion, if you intend to STAY in business. But in the United States of America, is it REALLY all that important?
What suprises me more about this subject is that many people let something like a manger scene, or In God We Trust, on our currency, effect them so bad. I see things that offend me all the time, like someone burning my flag, or a KKK cross, or police officers being called pigs, or people who think that ALL politicians aren't liars. All kinds of things offend us, but I think every time I get offended, about the boys we have around the world who are dying, to defend those peoples right, to offend me.
The seperation of church and state has never been a viable thought, since religious faith is based in the heart, and who really knows whats in the heart of a politician. Our elected officials can't possibly make rules and laws for the rest of us to follow, without having some kind of personal feelings about what they are doing.
I agree that taxpayers money should not be used to promote any religion, but christians pay taxes to, so the argument could be made that they have as much right to see where their tax money goes as the next person.
Being in business I have come to the realization that you don't talk politics or religion, if you intend to STAY in business. But in the United States of America, is it REALLY all that important?
Scott Conklin
New member
I see we've quickly dodged back to the twin irrelevencies of the leftist "endorsement" interpretation of Jefferson's letter and why government shiould/shouldn't pay. Both are fundamentally wrong-headed. Jefferson desired neither endorsement nor restriction of free religious expression. Paying for things is endorsement. Preventing things is restriction. Both are wrong and outside the legitimate range of government, but they seem to be all we can debate these days because most people can't operate outside the carefully framed leftist context of the issue.
As for the idea of having so much participation we'll run out of room? I think we could cross the bridge if we ever arrived at it(not likely).
As for the idea of having so much participation we'll run out of room? I think we could cross the bridge if we ever arrived at it(not likely).
Absolutely. But their ideas as to where money should go should not interfere with the belief system of those who believe in other things and vice versa. Since we can't cater to every religion in existence it's far more logical to cater to none of them than to try to cater to all of them.
yaya
Scott Conklin
New member
yaya all you want. It is correct, whether it fits your agenda or not.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
When it becomes : Leftists, Liberals - blah, blah - we know that the argument is over and the thread lock is coming. The core argument is that the religious majority knows that their religion is true and the state should promote it. If you don't see why the state should promote that religion you are a liberal or a leftist.
How pathetic. I was right in my initial call on the thread. Those promoting state religion just call names and evoke their majority right to be tyrannical.
As far as state holidays for 'philosophers' - let's take off Betrand Russell Day, Spinoza Day, Socrates Day, Plato Day, etc. Give me a break.
What we see are rather pathetic attempts to justify state support of Christianity because that's what America is all about. Or be a leftist. :barf:
How pathetic. I was right in my initial call on the thread. Those promoting state religion just call names and evoke their majority right to be tyrannical.
As far as state holidays for 'philosophers' - let's take off Betrand Russell Day, Spinoza Day, Socrates Day, Plato Day, etc. Give me a break.
What we see are rather pathetic attempts to justify state support of Christianity because that's what America is all about. Or be a leftist. :barf:
Because we are kindred sites and also share many of the same members, we have at times had threads that were closed here, duplicated on THR. The reverse is also true. And, of course, there are times both sites have the same thread running. I mention this in passing, as it appears that this thread was started up, solely because the same thread over at THR drifted from Establishment Clause issues to secularism/humanist/atheist issues and definitions, and was thereafter closed by Art.
The thrust of Harris' statements are that the "Wall of Separation between the Church and State" is a lie. That the Constitution contains no such proscription. That is what this thread should focus upon. Like Dave, I agree that this thread will get immediately closed should it stray into any of several side-topics.
Early in the first page of that thread, Lone Gunman remarked:
Now quoting Jefferson as a definitive means to form an opinion on the meaning of the first amendment is, to me, disingenuous at best. Jefferson was an ambassador to France at the time of the drafting of the amendments and had no part in their making. There are better authorities (Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, the principal authors of the First Amendment), but then the Court may not have had the foundational backing to make their ground-breaking Establishment Clause ruling in Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. It is the case which made Jefferson's phrase famous! Yes, it was first used in Reynolds, but that was and is a relatively obscure opinion, and had to do with marriage (polygamy to be exact), not the secular nature of the government.
With this in mind, what exactly do I believe the Establishment Clause means?
To put it bluntly and simply, the government should at all times remain neutral as regards religion. It should neither hinder nor promote any religious beliefs.
One of the ideals of the founders were to hold the rights of individuals above the whims of the public. That is, our rights are not to be contingent upon a vote by the majority, nor are they to be held hostage to a legislature that votes the whims of the public.
The 2 religious clauses of the 1st amendment were clear. 1)That the government, through legislation, was not to establish any religion or religious preference. [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,] 2)That the people had a right to practice the religion of their conscience and the government was prohibited from interfering with that practice. [Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof;]
Can the government be prohibited from displaying a creche at Xmas? Yes. No tax monies may be used for such a display. But this should also pertain to non-religious displays on government property. Can the government prohibit the voluntary display of such on government property? Again, yes. But with this proviso: The government may prohibit the display of anything religious or secular, as long as it is prohibiting such with equal force under the law (the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th).
And that's where it gets dicey. The courts are all over the spectrum with this thing. So it's no wonder that people feel they are being abused or even persecuted.
JimW, a manger scene depicts the beginnings and foundational root of Christianity. All Christianity. To imply anything else is just disingenuous. To the vast majority of non-Christian peoples, Jesus and his birth represent the Christian religion. It is foolish to state anything else.
But that doesn't mean it (the creche scene) shouldn't be allowed on government property that the public is welcome to use for other diverse things. It means the government cannot use any public funds for such a display. Nor does it mean that the government has to allow such a display at times other than the Christmas holiday.
Redworm, Christmas is a recognized federal holiday because it has become a secular holiday as well as (or possibly despite) it's religious roots.
The thrust of Harris' statements are that the "Wall of Separation between the Church and State" is a lie. That the Constitution contains no such proscription. That is what this thread should focus upon. Like Dave, I agree that this thread will get immediately closed should it stray into any of several side-topics.
Early in the first page of that thread, Lone Gunman remarked:
I'm quoting from the off-site thread because that was indeed the reason for Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in the first place. It was to let them know that the central government would not get involved in any religion. Theirs included.Lone Gunman said:
Now quoting Jefferson as a definitive means to form an opinion on the meaning of the first amendment is, to me, disingenuous at best. Jefferson was an ambassador to France at the time of the drafting of the amendments and had no part in their making. There are better authorities (Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, the principal authors of the First Amendment), but then the Court may not have had the foundational backing to make their ground-breaking Establishment Clause ruling in Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. It is the case which made Jefferson's phrase famous! Yes, it was first used in Reynolds, but that was and is a relatively obscure opinion, and had to do with marriage (polygamy to be exact), not the secular nature of the government.
With this in mind, what exactly do I believe the Establishment Clause means?
To put it bluntly and simply, the government should at all times remain neutral as regards religion. It should neither hinder nor promote any religious beliefs.
One of the ideals of the founders were to hold the rights of individuals above the whims of the public. That is, our rights are not to be contingent upon a vote by the majority, nor are they to be held hostage to a legislature that votes the whims of the public.
The 2 religious clauses of the 1st amendment were clear. 1)That the government, through legislation, was not to establish any religion or religious preference. [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,] 2)That the people had a right to practice the religion of their conscience and the government was prohibited from interfering with that practice. [Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof;]
Can the government be prohibited from displaying a creche at Xmas? Yes. No tax monies may be used for such a display. But this should also pertain to non-religious displays on government property. Can the government prohibit the voluntary display of such on government property? Again, yes. But with this proviso: The government may prohibit the display of anything religious or secular, as long as it is prohibiting such with equal force under the law (the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th).
And that's where it gets dicey. The courts are all over the spectrum with this thing. So it's no wonder that people feel they are being abused or even persecuted.
JimW, a manger scene depicts the beginnings and foundational root of Christianity. All Christianity. To imply anything else is just disingenuous. To the vast majority of non-Christian peoples, Jesus and his birth represent the Christian religion. It is foolish to state anything else.
But that doesn't mean it (the creche scene) shouldn't be allowed on government property that the public is welcome to use for other diverse things. It means the government cannot use any public funds for such a display. Nor does it mean that the government has to allow such a display at times other than the Christmas holiday.
Redworm, Christmas is a recognized federal holiday because it has become a secular holiday as well as (or possibly despite) it's religious roots.
I'm not on THR so please don't think my making this thread had anything to do with that. 
I just wanted to bring up the point that one particular Republican was all up in arms thinking that only Christians should be allowed to hold office. The whole divine right of kings, y'know...kinda irks me.
I just wanted to bring up the point that one particular Republican was all up in arms thinking that only Christians should be allowed to hold office. The whole divine right of kings, y'know...kinda irks me.I dont understand why some try to turn this stuff into rocket science. Easy to understand. We have some religious groups that came to America because they were persecuted by the Church of England. So when the time came to make up the rules of the road for this nation it was decided there would be no official "state" religion. That citizens are free to practice the religion of thier choice without interference from the goverment as long as it doesnt break the rule of law in its practices. In other words if your religion calls for human sacrifice then you have stepped over the line and the government will step in as you will be violating another citizens rights.
The flip side of the coin is that government will be secular and the laws will be made with regards to the rights of the citizens instead of religious doctrine. So that means that while folks like Mrs. Coulter may refer to me as a godless liberal heathen, I am still a citizen in good standing because we follow the rule of law not the rules of religion.
My religion is between me and God with no middleman or government involved. I guess some religious folks forgot about the reformation that occured sevral hundred years ago. The church should be a place of education about God and the rules of the road, not a political organization trying to enforce thier beliefs on other citizens. The church should be a place where you have your eyeballs peeled toward heaven not a material world where you want to change others into a round peg.
The flip side of the coin is that government will be secular and the laws will be made with regards to the rights of the citizens instead of religious doctrine. So that means that while folks like Mrs. Coulter may refer to me as a godless liberal heathen, I am still a citizen in good standing because we follow the rule of law not the rules of religion.
My religion is between me and God with no middleman or government involved. I guess some religious folks forgot about the reformation that occured sevral hundred years ago. The church should be a place of education about God and the rules of the road, not a political organization trying to enforce thier beliefs on other citizens. The church should be a place where you have your eyeballs peeled toward heaven not a material world where you want to change others into a round peg.
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
Eghad! Well said, Eghad.
Antipitas,
Sorry, but to me and many others it signifies the birth of Christ son of God. To non believers it is simply the brth of the philosopher Jesus and nothing more. If they don't believe he is Christ then what does the significance of his birth mean to them? They are offended because I and others believe it signifies the birth of Christ? If you don't believe he is Christ then why would the birth of the man offend you?!
As to MLK or Abe's birthday etc...they say they are honored for being American heros(I agree), howevere some people may feel otherwise---should they be offended?
Sorry, but to me and many others it signifies the birth of Christ son of God. To non believers it is simply the brth of the philosopher Jesus and nothing more. If they don't believe he is Christ then what does the significance of his birth mean to them? They are offended because I and others believe it signifies the birth of Christ? If you don't believe he is Christ then why would the birth of the man offend you?!
As to MLK or Abe's birthday etc...they say they are honored for being American heros(I agree), howevere some people may feel otherwise---should they be offended?
Eghad,
the only problem with what you say is this:
What your final paragraph essentially says is that the Church is irrelevant to every area of life except getting us to heaven (you Church people go to your little building and leave the real problems of the world to the government), whereas the Bible teaches the exact opposite.
You are right the Founding Fathers didn't want a particular denomination residing over everybody in the Union (like making the Baptist Church the Church of America) and demanding support by taxes and everyone must go to this church. But neither did they believe that religion should be excluded from the political or secular circle, in fact they viewed it as the key foundation to the Republic. The fact is that all forms of government are based on some kind of system of theology (whether good or bad theology). That is a sense of right and wrong and good and bad.
the only problem with what you say is this:
What your final paragraph essentially says is that the Church is irrelevant to every area of life except getting us to heaven (you Church people go to your little building and leave the real problems of the world to the government), whereas the Bible teaches the exact opposite.
You are right the Founding Fathers didn't want a particular denomination residing over everybody in the Union (like making the Baptist Church the Church of America) and demanding support by taxes and everyone must go to this church. But neither did they believe that religion should be excluded from the political or secular circle, in fact they viewed it as the key foundation to the Republic. The fact is that all forms of government are based on some kind of system of theology (whether good or bad theology). That is a sense of right and wrong and good and bad.
You can't put a blanket statement on the manger scene. I do know some people who don't believe Jesus was the son of God. They do respect the philosopher however. So the manger scene takes on different meanings for different people. Many people look at guns themselves as evil---others don't. Should either be offended? It's all in the eye---to say that EVERY person who sees a manger thinks that it is the birth of the son of God is flat wrong---especially if they don't agree!
JimW, the birth of the Christ (it's a title, not a name - The language is koine greek and means "annointed") is exactly what I said it was.
Ya know, Dave warned everyone, as did I. Your post and the one following it by Doug.38PR clinches it.
This thread was not a discussion on Christianity. It was a discussion on the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment. It had the potential to be a good thread. Shame really!
Closed for being off topic.
I hope that wasn't directed at me... You have no idea of what beliefs I hold to.JimW said:
Ya know, Dave warned everyone, as did I. Your post and the one following it by Doug.38PR clinches it.
This thread was not a discussion on Christianity. It was a discussion on the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment. It had the potential to be a good thread. Shame really!
Closed for being off topic.
- Status