Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Separation of Church and State >

Separation of Church and State

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Separation of Church and State

Old 05-22-2013, 06:57 PM
  #1  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,429
Default Separation of Church and State

I've been wanting to start this topic for a while.

There seem to be a lot of myths about what this means and how it should be applied. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights (see quote below) prohibits congress from making any laws regarding a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of that religion. The restrictions are placed on the federal government and appropriately so.

1. 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.
There are lots of quotes (some of them incorrectly attributed) and justifications bandied about but the original document (Bill of rights) only puts restrictions on Congress and not upon religions. Many anti-religious groups frequently espouse the wall of separation but conveniently overlook the fact that such a wall should rightfully include those who don't believe either as that is a choice and thus a belief.

What does everybody else think?
CalHunter is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 07:11 PM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
sconnyhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wherever liberalism must be eradicated.
Posts: 2,706
Default

I think that it is rather succinct, and as straight forward as is possible.
The GOVERNMENT shall not invent its own religion, as did King James in Great Britain. It does not mean that the Government shall not bid homage to that belief which in part the Constitution is founded.
sconnyhunter is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 07:20 PM
  #3  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,320
Default

The seperation of church and state traces back to a KKK member who was a judge and disliked the catholic church. Completely made up phrase that gave the Dems something to cling to and continue their push for the all powerful federal governmnet.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 07:37 PM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
FlDeerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DeFuniak Spr.Florida
Posts: 4,329
Default

Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution.But to the libs who can find all kinds of weird things it doesn't matter.
FlDeerman is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 08:10 PM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,291
Default

Originally Posted by FlDeerman View Post
Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution.But to the libs who can find all kinds of weird things it doesn't matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights

Uh, the Fourteenth Amendment made it so that the Bill of Rights can be applied to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

"On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 54 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments."

You didn't say anything about that, now did you?

Conservatives get their panties in a bunch when they can't teach creationism or have prayers at schools, but the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about semi-autos or other repeating guns that can carry more than just a few rounds, and it was applied against the federal government, not the states.
BigBuck22 is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 01:23 AM
  #6  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,952
Default

I think the concept of seperatng government from religion is great. But, like anything else, it can be taken to unintended extremes.

You may be eluding to an example, when you mention anti-religious citizens. Where non believers attempt to expell examples of faith from government properties. I don't think this was the intention of the first amendment.

ATB
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 03:03 AM
  #7  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,869
Default

The intent of the simply language was to make it so simple its meaning could not be misunderstood. However in the creation of the government powers were granted to redefine anything, a forked tongue if you will.

The crux has always been in the peoples hands. The redefinition can only come when the people abuse the freedoms of each other giving the government the opportunity to define/apply a law. In this case religion had taken its freedom and abuse others when it was free of the regulations it's under today. The pendulum has swung back on those who used freedom for personal gain. It's always best left stationary, the same for all, because once it's pushed it continues to swing through generations until people once again respect freedoms demands or they are no more.

When religion had the power it forbid state, now state has its turn to uphold freedom or push the pendulum back, it's pushing. We today are suffering for the sins of our fathers to the third and forth generations back. What are we doing to those to come?
The OP is right, the government has established a religion, it's own with its own petty gods, but that should've always been expected. If it was people may have "kept" our republic.

I believe God is God, He comes and goes as He see's best. People have learned nothing, God isn't outside begging to come in, and Hes everywhere holding things together. If He wasn't in schools, there wouldn't be one anywhere. People walk through schools boasting about how God isn't allowed and the very fact they are in one proves how foolish the thought is.

Some will say where was God when the winds hit those schools? Where was He indeed? Now they want shelters everywhere, in tornado land, who da thunk it. When people are obsessed with vice they don't take care of the things they should and when disaster hits they are consumed. That little tid bit of wisdom is what could be taught in schools if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was allowed, but then the light would shine on all vices and enslaving people with their desires that much more difficult and revealing.

"Seperation" only in the minds of some.
nodog is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 03:15 AM
  #8  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,869
Default

Originally Posted by BigBuck22 View Post
Conservatives get their panties in a bunch when they can't teach creationism or have prayers at schools, but the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about semi-autos or other repeating guns that can carry more than just a few rounds, and it was applied against the federal government, not the states.
Again the language was deliberately simple, not including everything because there was no way to think of everything. If it could've been thought of don't your think Franklin would've dabbled in it?

The second doesn't have to say anything, it is merely a statement that says say what you think is right (the first) and if your life is threatened by tyranny for saying it you have the second as a law to defend it. With the weapons our government has at it's disposal, the framers most certainly intended for the people to be as armed to defend against it as they could be. That was the intent as they LIVED it then.
nodog is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 04:10 AM
  #9  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

This should be an interesting thread.

It's not really clear to me how to interpret the reference to "establishment of religion." It could mean an organized Church such as the Roman Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention. Or it could refer to a religious faith, such as Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

I'm inclined to think they meant the former since, in that time, for most of the colonists, the agency representing religion was the Church of England. And that agency had a strong tendency to be oppressive. In England, the monarch was the head of the Church of England and Parliament was responsible for enforcing Church rules. I think the authors of the Constitution wished to prevent this potentially abusive link between government and church.

For most of our history, the vast majority of the population identified with Christianity. While Protestant churches do differ on some significant points of doctrine, they generally shared a common set of beliefs which made the presentation of religious views in a public school acceptable. Older people have told me that it used to be common for students to sing Christmas carols in school. Devout Catholics, of course, maintained a separate school system, thus eliminating a potential source of conflict.

But I think we can all agree that times have changed. While most of us, surveys show, believe in God, the details attached to that belief may differ considerably. So we now have the potential for conflict, at least when it comes to public expressions of religious beliefs. This conflict becomes a real issue in public schools because even devout Christians may differ on some fundamental principles.

So I think the interpretation of the First Amendment's reference to an "establishment of religion" has drifted around to the second possible interpretation, that is, that it is directed towards a particular faith. So the government is now considered as barred from recognizing a religious faith, such as Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

So what's the effect? The second amendment was only recently applied to the states, but the first amendment has been applied to the states for a long time now. So focusing on the terms, "Congress shall make no" would be a mistake. Now the bar on religious teaching in public schools is pretty much a no-brainer. I don't think any of us want a teacher propounding his/her own religious beliefs to our kids. This was okay when everyone shared a set of common elements of faith. But we now have lots of differences. We need to keep that religious instruction private.

But do the restrictions go too far? Personally, I think so. The vast majority of Americans say that they do believe in God. If a small group of avowed atheists find a non-sectarian prayer offensive, well that's unfortunate, but I'm not sympathetic. There are some customs in our society that many find acceptable that I find offensive. I live with it. It's my personal opinion.

In addition, our system of government and our legal system, is founded, in large part, on the Judeo/Christian tradition. It's not based on the Koran, the Threefold Lotus Sutra, etc. So I don't see why there should be any objection allowed to the public expression of this fact. While, the founders carefully avoided a connection between government and religion in the Constitution, they did not disavow our common connection to the Creator.

It's certainly appropriate to respect the rights of a minority to be free of oppression. But I believe the rights of the majority are also due respect.
sachiko is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 04:18 AM
  #10  
Boone & Crockett
 
The Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burleson Texas
Posts: 12,560
Default

Libbies a question for ya; what direction are we headed now that were are turning away from God? I could write a book on this subject, but I'm not going to waste my time with your panty waste crying.
The Rev is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.