"The separation of church and state is just a myth" How do you respond?

My brother wiped me out.

I would love to have some real help on this.

Thank you.

Unitarians?
Episcopalians?
Zoroasterians?
Pastafarians?

Which church.

It's a bullshit argument. A straw man, a red herring.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle. There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

Good explanation.

have stayed in England. Original colonists came here so they would be free to practice religious beliefs according to their own conscience and not to be told by the state what religion and practices were their legal obligations.

Or as Jesus said, "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's and give unto God that which is God's."

Someone who respects their own religion really should not want to muddy the waters of faith with the unstable and temperamental antics of politics. God's realm is above the world, not of it and God deals with us as unique individuals and each is to be accountable to God and God alone for our full moral actions.

Government intervenes in such issues when the very lives and survival of its people are at stake and uses a system of justice that works to be fair (hopefully) but not something that in anyway replaces the justice of God. IE we put mass murders away because they are a threat to the public.

If government tries to take the place of God in any way shape or form, then it becomes a false idol. People who care about their faith and believe in God understand that He is separate from the world of politics and that His rule is through the hearts of His believers and through His own means that do not depend upon the vagaries of political appetites.

Different take. Spin it back around and see if they could take the State-Religion if it were Buddhism or Wicca for instance. Would they sit and tolerate being forced to speak words and perform actions that went against their own faith, for the sake of the State Religion, whatever it is? Even if it were "Christian" - which type? Lutheran? Which Senate? Catholic? EVERYONE? Inquisition anyone?

either. . .they are constantly crowing about that too. They just don't have the guts to admit they don't believe in the right to a fair trial, also. Yet.

Finally! A clear concise argument to use against my fundy in-laws who insist that America is supposed to be an officially "Christian" nation! They always refute the idea of separation of church and state. Now I can pounce on them for it.

:shrug:

Then let the POPE take over Bush job as President

There it is in the Constitution and if you research you will probably find many legal decisions that uphold it. Theocracy was wasn't sanctioned by the framers of the Constitution and allowing the state to be governed by a state religion would probably be regarded as treason by the founding fathers.

...Or, perhaps this will help-

Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html

The founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution, and the faithful often regarded our early presidents as insufficiently pious.

George Washington was a nominal Anglican who rarely stayed for Communion.

John Adams was a Unitarian, which Trinitarians abhorred as heresy. Thomas Jefferson, denounced as an atheist, was actually a deist who detested organized religion and who produced an expurgated version of the New Testament with the miracles eliminated. Jefferson and James Madison, a nominal Episcopalian, were the architects of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. James Monroe was another Virginia Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams was another Massachusetts Unitarian.

The Godless Constitution
The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.

The Declaration of Independence is seen as that document that established the new nation of the United States. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1778, nine years before the U.S. Constitution was written. It was signed by the Continental Congress and sent to King George III of England. It is a very eloquent document that is celebrated every July 4, but it is not the law of the land. It is a statement of sentiments directed to King George III in reaction to unfair taxation.

The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator:"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. Foes of the principle of separation of church and state often refer to the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence as proof that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for the United States to be ruled by a soveriegn being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

Those aughta git ya started...:)

it and said something to the effect of, "so, there is no way that the seperation of "church and state" can be supported "historically" with any document.

It was not a pleasant afternoon with the two of them needless to say.

Bless their little hearts.

Thank you all for the small degree of sanity you afford me!!

I forgot,

The eldest brother is non-denominational/wife is/was Catholic (both now attend a Methodist Church in Far North Dallas for the pomp and circumstance), younger brother was a pastor/graduate of DTS/now a carpenter/builder(not a pastor anymore) in the far Mid West reaches.

and then said it is not supported historically?

Severe case of cognitive dissidence going on in your family my freind... you might get them checked out by the family doctor!

Good luck.

you can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose... but you can't pick your family!

:rofl:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Jefferson clarified the provision of separating church and state in this letter. This is giving us the clear intent of one of the Founding Fathers.

But, the concept is.

Sorry, maybe it's not germane to this topic, but it's a concept I've been toying with lately. :shrug:

sounds like they are reading works wholly literally. if it doesn't explicitly state word-by-word then therefore it isn't real, right? just ask them a few stupid, obvious questions to shake them from this stupidity. make it into a sort of game.

"Ooh a 'STOP' sign! whaddya gonna do? stop breathing? stop chewing gum? stop moving your body? Or are you going to get your head out of your ass and realize that words and life must function in context, and in this case you should stop the car. but don't stop the car forever, because that 'STOP' sign isn't gonna magically change into a 'GO' sign."
:D
"Ooh, 'caution -- hot' label! whaddya gonna do? are you gonna put a cordon around it with yellow caution tape and call the police? are you going to run screaming? gonna run to the nearest firestation and don a fireman's outfit? call them out to put out your cup of coffee? what'cha gonna do? there's literally not enough words there to tell you what to do! OH NOES!"
:D
"Criminal! It said 'open here'! not anywhere! give me that bag of chips. for shame!.. and you! you were about to use scissors to open this? where does it say 'open here *with scissors*'? that's right, nowhere, so you're crazy. you have no historical precedent to open bags with scissors! you just made up this idea about scissors and opening bags, it's all a myth! get outta here."
:evilgrin:

keep doing it until they realize they were being stupid, and realize to not act stupid in front of you again.

The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and state. In some parts of the world this separation has guaranteed the diversity of religious expressions and the freedom to worship God according to each person's conscience. Separation of church and state means no organic union of the two, but it does permit interaction. The state should not use its authority to promote particular religious beliefs (including atheism), nor should it require prayer or worship in the public schools, but it should leave students free to practice their own religious convictions. We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life.

http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6384

Many Protestant denominations suffered from persecution by Established Churches in their early history. Most of them remember that harsh lesson.

in the Constitution to build a "wall of separation":

"I contemplate with sovereign 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."

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

.
1.) The Declaration of Independence is just as it says, it is a declaration to the world as to the King of England's behavior and as a result of such that the colonies may demand and did thereby demand their independence from the King. However -- and this is vital in law -- the Declaration is not a legal document, has no legal bearing whatsoever in law, never did, and never will. Any reference to God, or to whomever, or to whatever (in the Declaration of Independence) is not legally binding in American jurisprudence across America, then or today or ever. Therefore, it is of no legal significance that God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and

2.) You are correct, there is no mention of God in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the first amendment tells us all that there shall be no state religion nor shall the state interfere w/ any religion, a two-way street, if you will. This amendment and its literal and legal meaning is where Jefferson derived his oft quoted "Wall of Separation of Church and State" (official federal government website) as he stated in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. And, last but the most important legality of all: the U.S. Constitution is our nation's highest law of the land; thus, all other laws, state, federal, municipal, regulatory, executive orders, or whatever else must conform with the U.S. Constitution, period.

This stuff you learn w/i the first fews days of law school.

________________________

edited to include: And, if you want to pull up a comfy chair, a good cup of coffee, and your reading glasses, here's a good layman's overview -- from Mother Jones Magazine -- of Scalia's preposterous "original intent" revisionist theory of law regarding our Founding Father's leaving God OUT of the U.S. constitution, not in as that pompous ass Scalia opines. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/original_intent.html

BTW, are you aware that the word "myth" (myth of the Separation of Church and State) is the new verbiage used by the non-thinking followers of our Evangelical-extremist President Bush? Does that also mean that all the U.S. Supreme Court justices and the case law flowing therefrom are all incorrect? ROFLMAO . . . how stupid can these idiot rightwingnuts get? I sure wish they would get an education, travel overseas, and, frankly, try a worldly view instead of their introspective isolationist dribble.

This J.D. appreciated your rant ... umm, I mean 'post.'

Wow B ..... that was an amazing response ....

Concise and direct to the issues ....

Bravo B .... Bravo ......

Long time, no see! We're going to have to make sure the Jan. DU MeetUp happens!

How's the kids?

The kids are doing great .... the girls are working and spent all their money on Christmas gifts ...

Silly girls ...

The boy is .. well, playing Xbox most the day, so that means HE is doing REALLY REALLY good too ... right ? .....

I went to the Lucky Lab Public House in the Village, and I thought that place was very kewl indeed ..... GREAT Pizza there ..... I havent checked in the State Forum lately .... I suppose I should, eh ? .... of course I will be there IF there is a there ....

B ? .. I was heartbroken by your job loss .... I hope you found a better one .... I have some connections at a local agency, if you would like them ....

Tell me if I can help ....

and the boy playing Xbox - eye-hand co-ordinatintion is a sought after skill.

Lucky Lab in the villiage would be a great meet-up spot for January!

I'm doing OK on the job thing.. Unemployment kicks in this week, and my boy is back from Basic Training, we've been spending quality time together... I'll start really looking after the first of the year... What was that Agency's name again? :rofl:

You help just by being there...
I'm OK.... see you at the Meet-Up!

What does Lord God Bush, a C-Legacy New England liberal educated silver-spoon elitist corporatist wanna-be King know that the rest of American history's great thinkers couldn't figure out? With everything that's gone on in our country for so long, why are we so willing to accept Constitutional education from a fake-accent fake-cowboy who cannot even pronounce the word Nuclear? So George say so...did you actually listen to WHY he says he can say so? Simply because he's President. That's it. He's a FUCKING MORAN. Tell your brother that. If separation of Church and State is a myth, so it The State itself.

and they had plenty of great examples of people who were both religiously and politically powerful. like king george iii and cardinal richelieu.

seriously, does your brother think we liberal just recently made up the concept?

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

-the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Also check out www.au.org

Maybe they don't understand English.

That the separation of church and state has always been. Look at the letters that the founding fathers wrote while they were writing the constitution. The fathers say that they wanted separation of church and state because they knew if religion got into the government that America would become a shitty country.

On what the founders laid out in terms of this and make them give one good reason church and state should be intertwined.

In that its not really explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (though many people disagree with me here, a lot of them well regarded legal scholars), but because of prevailing attitudes at the time it was adopted as how we do things in the US.

the phrase itself comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church group. James Madison also wrote about the concept at length.

I think the founders felt that denying the ability of the Congress to establish a national church with an government official as its head (like the Church of England) they achieved their purpose. They also wanted to be explicit against the idea of "devin right". Leaders ruled by the will of the people, not the will of God, or Buddha or whatever.

I think calling it a "myth" is a bit dishonest.

double

"Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion."

What's his proof that it's all a myth? Before you go on the defensive, force him to prove his assertion first. If he can't, tell him he's full of shit (which he is regardless).

Once we know what his specific arguments are, we can go through refuting them. Until then, all I can say is First Amendment and Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (or even the Treaty of Tripoli).

I'd love to be of more help, but it's like refuting idiotic creationist arguments: they're so numerous and so devoid of merit (and each require a long rebuttal, as telling the truth always takes more time than flat out making shit up), that it would take too long to try to come up with every possible rebuttal. We need the specifics, so we can refute them.

Thomas Jefferson and every Supreme Court since the creation of the country has asserted that there's a separation between the two. If your brother wants to go up against Jefferson and every Supreme Court, he better have some damn good arguments.

motion. I am tired of everyones arguments being "because" their is never anything to back up what they are saying. I was reading conservative reviews of the world is flat by t. friedman and it occured to me that they never acutally read the whole book. Forcing these kind of people to back up their beliefs is the right way.

Good Luck.

but I would ask your brother whether he really thinks that the state should be imposing itself in the most intimate sphere of our personal lives, namely our spirituality.

The founders clearly intended that there should be a separation. There is plenty of evidence for that, though others more knowledgable than myself will have to provide it. They had seen what the effects were in other countries of not having that separation.

Of course, just because our country was founded with the intention of their being separation of church and state, doesn't mean that it will continue to be that way. The alternative would seem to be some sort of theocracy, though our country is so religiously diverse that it's hard to know which sect would end up on top.

You might try looking up the Treaty of Tripoli and see what you find.

but the first thing I talk about is the founding fathers' quotes which clearly show what the founding fathers' intent when authoring and approving of the First Amendment. In the Treaty of Tripoli, authored by Joel Barlow, and signed by none other than John Adams, it is clearly stated, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion .."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html


This clearly shows that the U.S. government was intended to be secular. In the First Amendment, it doesn't preclude establishment of "a" religion; it precludes establishment of "religion" period. Thomas Jefferson clarified what was meant by the First Amendment when he referred to the "wall of separation between church and state" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists. The history of a document has been a vital part of the courts' interpretation of the Constitution, its amendments, and legislation.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html


Then I talk about how case law is as much "the law" as statutory law, and how many, many court opinions have held that there MUST BE a separation of church and state. This means no GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP of religion (not referring to private behavior on the part of a private citizen). The U.S. Supreme Court just affirmed the separation of church and state in:

VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, 03-1500 (U.S. 2005)
No. 03-1500.
Argued March 2, 2005. Decided June 27, 2005.


In 1925, the Court stated, "The American people as a whole have unalterably determined
that there shall be an absolute and unequivocal separation of
church and state, and that the public schools shall be maintained
and conducted free from influences in favor of any religious
organization, sect, creed or belief" in PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

He better be prepared for the government to interfere with his church.

...that mandates all churches and houses of worship must be open to anyone who walks through the doors, and they must provide any assistance they are able to provide to any that ask, before building another wing on the glass cathedral. And once my government has successfully beaten all the churches into submission, forcing them into embracing homosexual communism, maybe they'll understand the reasons that there is a seperation of church and state.

Great Critique of the bible. IT doesn't say much about the church state argument directly, but you can imagine how he felt about the mingling of the two.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

http://blog.au.org/

But don't bother firing off a fusillade of rebuttals; it isn't necessary. Go with this: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. --- Thomas Jefferson

Better yet, just extract this: "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."

The people most likely to need this, generally feel that most if not all of "liberal legislation" is "unconstitutional. Invariably, they evoke what they interpret as "Original Intent" of the Founding Fathers. It's almost always a cramped and tortuous interpretation. This one is NOT.

pnorman

Thanks for your help. Think he will listen?

It isn't as important that HE LISTEN as much as that YOU FEEL EMPOWERED to have your OWN SAY about things. You cannot change anyone except yourself.

Your brother is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Good leaders will turn to their faith for guidance on difficult decisions without any need to make it a public grandstand or put down those who beleive differently.

Bad leaders will use religion as a goading stick, a ready excuse for their misdeeds and a tool for the enslavement of the masses. History is full of examples of how that didn't work. America and Democracy was the new hope, a shining example of how people of many faiths could live together in peace.

"They will know we are Christians by our love," NOT our faith based government that mandates who we call God, how often and what we are required to say.

I knew better than to step in until I was well armed and I came to DU seeking aid.

Thanks.

about 15 years ago

David Barton is one who pushes this with books and videos and workshops......there's a link somewhere to all the misquotes he's made

Our Endangered Values. He covers this as well as a many other topics that the religious right (and the rest of us) are concerned about. He cuts through the lies and just presents the facts in a straightforward, concerned and uncondescending manner.

was only 202 pages. :(

first introduction to the truth. I wouldn't expect them to jump right in with a book like Crossing the Rubicon, because the length alone is daunting.

It's hard to know what to respond to in this post, as I am not sure whether Citrene's brother meant that it is a myth that the founders intended church and state affairs to be separate, or that the current existence of a separation between church and state is myth.

The other posters have done a great job of defending Jefferson et al on the origins of the intent of a separation of church and state, so I shall desist. However, assuming that Citrene's brother meant that the actual separation of church and state is mythical, I think he might have a point. There are a myriad religious fingerprints all over our government and its functions; so much so that the Supreme Court attempted to clarify when exactly Congress could "aid" religion and the kinds of aid it could give in 1971 in Lemon v. Kurtzman. Since then, the Supremes have continued to use the Lemon test to determine if government activities, usually in the form of finances, have become overly intrusive in religious affairs. But it seems to me that any reading of Lemon leads one to conclude that there is no separation: church and state are fundamentally intertwined in the US, and the Supremes are trying to draw (or redraw) constitutional boundaries within the First Amendment and case law.

There was an interesting podcast from the National Constitution Center about whether or not public schools can teach "Intelligent Design" that dealt with the separation of church and state question, if a bit tangentially. If anyone is interested, I can provide the link.

He made a statement that our understanding of it is as simple as an e'mail and made reference to the letter Jefferson sent to the church. That there is nothing for any of "us" to stand on when it comes to the "separation of church and state".

What an afternoon. I'm so glad I did not respond, I was not prepared to get into this with him.

What a shame and a heartbreak.

Once again, thank you all and I will forward some to him.

Don't forget that your first responsibility to your family is simply to love them despite the disagreements.

Your first responsibility to yourself is to speak up for your own beliefs without tromping on theirs. I like to Say What I Mean and MEAN what I say WITHOUT SAYING IT mean.

And if you yourself are a believer, then pray for him to be shown by God the truth, because God isn't shy about that, especially if you simply in your heart want your brother to be following the correct path and not misled.

Gosh, that idea sounds familiar!

or Thomas Jefferson

.
_________________________

edited to add: And, welcome to DU, Citrene


.

There was another thread recently with exactly this question of wanting references to back up the fact that the country was founded with the intention to firmly separate church and state. There were a number of suggestions in the replies. Here's the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5579199
thread title (12/12): Need help: Debating a FReeper who says this country was founded on God

EDITED TO ADD: The original image is hosted at AllHatNoCattle.net, which has recently been having some site problems. It may come up later as these are resolved. But in case it doesn't, I'll describe the image. It's got a picture of Jerry Falwell on the left, with the quote "I will never apologize for fearlessly defending the Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded." On the right is an image of George Washington, with a quote from HIM: "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion." Across the bottom of the graphic is the question, "Which of these two people is a liar?"

at solstice. He should be naked and prepared to sing.

And I quote: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Article six validates the Treaty of Tripoli, and the bit about 'supreme Law of the Land' sounds pretty damn heady, plus, like Louis Jordan says, "they go hand in hand"......:)


Like weiners and sauerkraut, YEAH
Like hot dogs and mustard, YEAH
Like sisters and brothers, YEAH
Like chitlins and potato salad, YEAH
Like strawberries and shortcake, YEAH
Like cornbeef and cabbage, YEAH
Like liver and onions, YEAH
Like red beans and rice, YEAH
Like bagels and lox, OY
Like sour cream and blintz, OY
Like bread and butter, YEAH
Like hot cakes and molasses, YEAH
Like Bean and cornbred, they go hand in hand



Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under thisConstitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

and echoed as a talking point constantly by neo-cons who have no religious affiliation. The separation of church and state has been spelled out clearly in many court decisions over the years - they just consider these as "activist" judges - you know, part of the liberal conspiracy to remove the church.

I just always laugh when they pull that line about separation being a "myth" - and then I ask then if their church is so greedy as to want my tax dollars now too.

If they deny this philosophy, point them toward many state constitutional definitions. Even Virginia, which is about the closest state we have to a theocratic dictatorship, the state wouldn't allow churches to purchase above a limited amount of acreage out of fear they would exact too much public power. Ironically, it was a recent wingnut legal case that had that old Virginia law thrown out - which obviously was grounded in the concept that there was a strict separation in church participation in government.

The "myth" argument they use is a stealth cover for proposals they keep pushing in Congress to allow ministers to endorse specific political candidates and wield greater political power and influence in the government. They call it a "myth" because they want to define a "christian" nation according to their personal beliefs - it's a televangelist theocracy power play.

Make your brother explain exactly what the MYTH is - and make him explain it beyond his interpretation of the Constitutional wording. Not establishing a church means just that - not establishing the CHRISTIAN religion as the official religion of the United States. Meaning, no "christian" nation. NONE. ZIP. That's why churches pay no taxes and that's why we aren't supposed to be supporting Pat Robertson.

Written by either George Washington, John Adams, or Joel Barlow(nobody really knows) the Treaty of Tripoli was passed unanimously through Congress and signed into law by John Adams. Article 11 contains the relavent phrase: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

Thus seperation of church and state was codified into law.

and follow up with a quick, "...so, what do you do at a stop sign? or warning sign about electric fences? ignoring words can get you in serious trouble..."

i really don't have the time to deal with such stupidity in my life, so i tend to become very short with them. if i feel particularly evil i bet them, knowing i'll win, and then get a copy of the constitution, preferrably in a very large textbook, and then read it to them, and the court rulings upholding the very obvious wordings therein. often my bet is that if i'm right i get to beat them, physically, into submission, often with said heavy book. it helps relieves my tension.

i guess i'm a bully at times, so what? but i probably have less ignorant people in my life than others... or they are sufficiently cowed not to be a jackass in my presence. all for the better, i really have no need to hear pedantic refusals of reality from people with their head so thoroughly up their ass. the less they get to flap their gums and pollute the world with their stupidity, the better.

ps: for any smartass responses pitying me and my "lack of enlightenment and kindness," i have plenty of friends, thank you very much, and a delightful lack of dumbfucks to deal with. i'm quite happy with my version of "enlightenment"; far more peaceful way to live, 'cause it nips bad things, and influences, in the bud before they take root. to every thing there is a season, remember?

Most gophers are okay with religious involvement in government because usually it's Christian involvement, and most Americans are Christians. It's the old "majority rule" argument.

But ask them what if it were Islam? Would they support a display of the Quran in a federal courtroom? Or even worse - what about a Wiccan pentagram? You can bet your ass they would oppose THAT.

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0913almanac.htm

and then refer them to over 210 years of First Amendment caselaw.

:rofl:

You must be a fucking idiot.

you can find on separation of church and state....scroll down and find the discussions on intent.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm

My favorite quote from Rev. John Leland:

Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .

To all of those who believe that our founding fathers founded this country on religion, most notably Christianity... please re-think your position. These are the same founding fathers who are viewed as great men, who are quoted unequivocally and whose ideas and laws are considered the best-laid of any in history. You could not be MORE wrong about this country being founded on judeo-christian ideals.

The Constitution of the United States:
* Article VI, Section 3: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
* First Amendment: "“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

James Madison:
- "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
- "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
- "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

John Adams:
- "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’" (From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756))
- "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
- "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. … It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. …Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind" (A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787–88)

Thomas Paine
- "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
- "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

Thomas Jefferson:
- "The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
- "The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible"
- "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
- "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (the Apocalypse), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825)
- "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814)
- "The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter... But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823)
- "I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789)
- "They believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." (Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800)
- "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." (Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813)
- "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
- "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
- "...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’" (From Jefferson’s biography)
- "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814)

George Washington:
- "The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."

Abraham Lincoln:
- "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."


Lastly, Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified and unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, and signed by John Adams:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

These men founded our country and these are their opinions... stop throwing that "America was founded on Christian beliefs" crap at us... it's just NOT TRUE.

Great links:

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm

That's just ridiculous. I wouldn't even bother trying to refute something so patently absurd. Anyone who believes that in the first place is irretrievable. My reply would involve shaking my head in disgust and saying "Unbelievable!".
The Professor

of the Constitution, then the only people who should have guns are the ones in the Army - "A well-regulated militia ..." means - under control . . .

Edited to add - reply also with "Since when are you siding on RULE OF LAW?" (a phrase which the Repukes promptly forgot 12/12/2000.

used by the right.

RESPONDING TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT:
THE BASIC ARGUMENTS

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/argidx.htm

in earnest need of contemporaneous implementation imo

*********QUOTE********

The American Revolution is sometimes said to have brought about the separation of church and state. The northern states made such declarations, but after 1776 they adopted taxes that forced everyone to support Christian teachings. William G. McLoughlin, quoting Supreme Court Justice David Brewer in 1892 that "this is a Christian nation," says of the separation of church and state in the Revolution that it "was neither conceived of nor carried out.... Far from being left to itself, religion was imbedded into every aspect and institution of American life."

*************UNQUOTE**********

My hazy memories of HS government class tell me that case law carries the same weight as the Constitution.

I'm not a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

That secretly fundies run the country and set national agenda...hey...wait they really do! Tell him that if it is a myth then we are all fucked.