Where is seperation of church and..

state?

Here is a copy of the US constitition, I have read over it and found NOTHING that says seperation of church and state.

http://www.cs.indian..craft/cons.body.html

[No-one-inparticular]

At 3/20/06 08:14 PM, furball1 wrote: state?

Here is a copy of the US constitition, I have read over it and found NOTHING that says seperation of church and state.

http://www.cs.indian..craft/cons.body.html

Exactly. Church-state separation is a load of crap.

[HighlyIllogical]

You're serious, right?

Ok, assuming you're serious...

No, there is no constitutional requirement for separation of church and state. HOWEVER:

It was pushed for by Jefferson and Madison, has been ap principle of the United States for years, and there is NO and never will be an organized (government supported) religion.

[RacistBassist]

i seen something in my us history textbook today that was somewhat along the lines of having no official religion for the state. so religion can be incorporated, just not on a widespread scale

[HighlyIllogical]

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."-Thomas Jefferson

And...since the Supreme court interperets the constitution...

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."-Ruling for EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Clicky for Full Ruling

[The-Last-Cynic]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

You couldn't see that because there was no bill of rights in your link, genious.
Now religion doesn't necessarily be seperate, but if the government uses some sort of religious symbol in their buildings or laws. Some could argue that such actions are a show of preference. I don't see things that way, but I could see why someone might believe that church and state must be seperate to avoid favoratism, since Thomas Jefferson seemed to think so.

[Shadic-1]

Where does it say in the constitution I can't strip naked in the middle of town and shout through a megaphone that </n word> and jews and "fags" should be sent to death camps?

[RacistBassist]

At 3/20/06 08:29 PM, -Shadic- wrote: Where does it say in the constitution I can't strip naked in the middle of town and shout through a megaphone that </n word> and jews and "fags" should be sent to death camps?

protected by constitituion but against law

[Imperator]

At 3/20/06 08:29 PM, -Shadic- wrote: Where does it say in the constitution I can't strip naked in the middle of town and shout through a megaphone that </n word> and jews and "fags" should be sent to death camps?

Amendment 10. All rights not expressed in the orig document are reserved for the states. The states made Indecent Exposure illegal, so your ass is fragged.

[BigBlueBalls]

Why do I keep seeing so many Americans keep bringing this up? I mean what are you suggesting, that there SHOULD be a state-sponsored religion because something specific may not be in the U.S. constitution?

[HighlyIllogical]

Well, BIgBlue, there are many Americans, I'm sure, who want Christianity to become the de jure national religion. It's pretty much the de facto religion.

[TheBlueBullet]

Its something suggested. People twist it and it no longer means what is used to mean anymore.

[Memorize]

At 3/20/06 08:20 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

It was pushed for by Jefferson and Madison, has been ap principle of the United States for years, and there is NO and never will be an organized (government supported) religion.

What about Under God in the pledge? It's been there for a while yet you have no problem getting rid of that.

[BigBlueBalls]

At 3/20/06 09:14 PM, AccessCode wrote: What about Under God in the pledge? It's been there for a while yet you have no problem getting rid of that.

Now I'm Canadian, but I actually supported Americans who wanted to keep that in the pledge. We have "God keep our land glorius and free" in our national anthem as well as "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" in the first page of our Charter of Rights. Yet Canada is known to be much more secular than the U.S. overall.

The whole point is that it doesn't say what God or who's God, so I see no problem with it. Now it IS a problem when the government claims to speak for God, tells us how to believe in God or sponsor a specific religion.

[sdhonda]

Now I'm Canadian, but I actually supported Americans who wanted to keep that in the pledge. We have "God keep our land glorius and free" in our national anthem as well as "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" in the first page of our Charter of Rights. Yet Canada is known to be much more secular than the U.S. overall.

Hey did you hear the "politicly correct canadian national anthum" on royal canadian airfarce. So funny. Makes you want to keep the original.

[zzazzman]

The point is that the US constitution implies separation, and it has been interpreted that way for literally hundreds of years now. The separation is simply necessary for the subsequent freedom and liberty we provide all out citizens.

[bakem0n0]

At 3/20/06 09:14 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 3/20/06 08:20 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

It was pushed for by Jefferson and Madison, has been ap principle of the United States for years, and there is NO and never will be an organized (government supported) religion.

What about Under God in the pledge? It's been there for a while yet you have no problem getting rid of that.

I hate the Under God in the pledge, not because it's a reference to God, but because it is only in our Pledge of Allegience as a propaganda device. Personally, I think it's wrong to include it in the pledge, but I find it rather funny considering it's a totemic ritual in the first place . . .

[Memorize]

im all for making things easy. Those who wish to say it should be able and those do not wish to say it shouldnt have to.

[bakem0n0]

At 3/21/06 01:17 AM, AccessCode wrote: im all for making things easy. Those who wish to say it should be able and those do not wish to say it shouldnt have to.

I agree with where you're coming from, but realistically it makes it sound rather bad when half the people reciting something stop then pick back up . . . not to mention learning it like that would make it sound like we're not sure what the words are.

I say just give up and take it out. It shouldn't have been in there in the first place, and the whole optional thing really gets ridiculous.

On the other hand, it's definately not worth wasting time in courts bickering about the legality of it. If it's going to be that costly to worry about it, just don't mess with it.

[Wakraw]

At 3/20/06 08:29 PM, -Shadic- wrote: Where does it say in the constitution I can't strip naked in the middle of town and shout through a megaphone that </n word> and jews and "fags" should be sent to death camps?

I believe the constitution disallows speech when it sole intent is to incite a riot and/or violence

[dcms-reaper]

well some fag tried to get rid of the words under god out of the pledge,( evidently he diddn't want his daughter to say under god but he didn't even have custody over her) and well thank God he lost!

[HighlyIllogical]

At 3/20/06 11:40 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: The whole point is that it doesn't say what God or who's God, so I see no problem with it. Now it IS a problem when the government claims to speak for God, tells us how to believe in God or sponsor a specific religion.

It implys that there IS a god. As much as I believe that, it's not government's place to say that.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/21/06 09:05 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 3/20/06 11:40 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote:

It implys that there IS a god. As much as I believe that, it's not government's place to say that.

But the Constitution never Imply's anything about this. The constitution mearly says that It won't hold one religion over another. And since God encompases many relgions and since Athiests aren't members of a religion, it isn't breaking any rules.

[mjairlax]

At 3/20/06 08:29 PM, -Shadic- wrote: Where does it say in the constitution I can't strip naked in the middle of town and shout through a megaphone that </n word> and jews and "fags" should be sent to death camps?

no running around naked is indescent exposure

[someoneudontknow1]

bill of rights, bro.

[Elfer]

At 3/20/06 08:14 PM, furball1 wrote: state?

Here is a copy of the US constitition, I have read over it and found NOTHING that says seperation of church and state.

http://www.cs.indian..craft/cons.body.html

Good job reading the body of the constituion.

Unfortunately for your argument, the body also lacks anyting with regards to free speech, the right to bear arms, or other such pittances.

[Demosthenez]

Lets make this simple. Judges have interpreted that the Constitution implys this. It may not directly say that but through the Supreme Courts deliberations it damn well might as well be.

At 3/21/06 09:05 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: It implys that there IS a god. As much as I believe that, it's not government's place to say that.

Ahh shut up you stupid atheist. LIke God on our dollar bills makes you want to be religious?

[bakem0n0]

At 3/22/06 12:47 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Ahh shut up you stupid atheist. LIke God on our dollar bills makes you want to be religious?

No, it implies that our nation is hypocritical, that's all.

[ReiperX]

At 3/22/06 12:47 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Lets make this simple. Judges have interpreted that the Constitution implys this. It may not directly say that but through the Supreme Courts deliberations it damn well might as well be.

At 3/21/06 09:05 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: It implys that there IS a god. As much as I believe that, it's not government's place to say that.

Ahh shut up you stupid atheist. LIke God on our dollar bills makes you want to be religious?

Do Budhists <sp> worship Buddah as a god? Do Hindus believe in a all mighty God or multiple Gods?

[Nylo]

At 3/22/06 01:45 AM, bakem0n0 wrote: No, it implies that our nation is hypocritical, that's all.

Your guys' perception of hypocracy is so contorted it's just sad. Please go to a true and blue religious-based government and come back to whine about America's evil "de facto" religion that supposedly runs our lives.