That does not mean that politicians are not allowed to practice and have their beliefs influenced by religion. It means that the state itself can not be directly influenced by a religion. For instance, if Congress were to suddenly orient the entire government towards Christian principles, and make Christianity a national religion.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I'm not asking that. I'm saying that it doesn't make a difference where her beliefs come from, people either agree or disagree, and vote accordingly.
it does if, as the article seems to indicate, they are very carefully trying to hide the fact that she holds views that are unacceptable to most of america and might eventually influence her policy decisions.
That does not mean that politicians are not allowed to practice and have their beliefs influenced by religion. It means that the state itself can not be directly influenced by a religion. For instance, if Congress were to suddenly orient the entire government towards Christian principles, and make Christianity a national religion.
what the hell are you talking about? no one here is even suggesting she wants to make us all christian. The whole point is that her religious beliefs DOES affect us because if she were to be setting policies in this country that have religious intent, then it is unconstitutional. and, as I and the OP just showed you, her religion does affect her policies.
it does if, as the article seems to indicate, they are very carefully trying to hide the fact that she holds views that are unacceptable to most of america and might eventually influence her policy decisions.
You're right. But that's politics. The same thing has happened with Obama, with the media portraying him as the right candidate, and overlooking some of his flaws. The framers of the Constitution did not foresee what an incredibly manipulative role the media would eventually play in politics. I smell a possible Amendment in the future.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
what the hell are you talking about? no one here is even suggesting she wants to make us all christian. The whole point is that her religious beliefs DOES affect us because if she were to be setting policies in this country that have religious intent, then it is unconstitutional. and, as I and the OP just showed you, her religion does affect her policies.
The intent behind someone's views does not make a bird shit of difference. It's the views themselves that are under scrutiny. Someone could be pro-life if they're religious or not. It doesn't make a difference.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."
"Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[9] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[10] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[11] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." [12] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
In that letter, Jefferson wrote:
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
"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, & 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 & State." [8]"
"Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.
The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[citation needed]
The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[14]"
But it's up to the people to decide. I don't see your point. That's true for any candidate that's elected regarding their personal beliefs, whether they're religious or not. If the public sees something negative about a candidate, they don't vote for him/her.
If you're talking about a candidate possibly forcing their religion onto the people, well that's a different issue. 1st Amendment clearly states freedom of religion. If there was some crazy way that legislation regarding a national religion or something like that was passed, the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional if it came to them in a case, which it surely would considering the outrage people would be feeling. Our government is designed to check the efforts of politicians from every possible angle.
In any case, I do not know a single religious person who believes that their religion should be instituted as a state religion. Despite the fact that they obviously believe that their beliefs are the truth, they still have respect for other people's rights to practice whatever religion they want.
...
Have you ever heard of 'Government Policy'? Yeah... that is driven by our leaders. Leaders who get voted into position by people. Government policy driven by religious beliefs... like, possibly... consulting his 'Higher Father' on going to War... instead of his biological father who successfully waged war in that same region... with that same adversary. Sound familiar? And guess what? THAT was not a Law.
And you say, 'Don't vote for them'. Okay I won't. But, who's choice is it to make for the person who WILL vote for him based upon his Religious affiliation. You can't honestly tell me that it does not come into play... can you?
And how about a leader appointing a Supreme Court Justice based upon his/her religious belief? Not dangerous? If you are in favor of their belief system... no.
Regarding This:
"In any case, I do not know a single religious person who believes that their religion should be instituted as a state religion. "
Yeah... you may not personally know these people who want to have morning prayer in our publicly funded schools... or erect 'Ten Commandments' in out public Courthouses... but, they are out there.
...
ADD: And Bush's 27% Approval? My guess... it's the same 27% that believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Church on Sunday* and voted for him based on his evangelical religion.
...
(*thanx, Tiina Fey)
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
So therefore you were wrong in saying that Palin's views being influenced by religion is unconstitutional.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."
"Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[9] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[10] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[11] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." [12] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
In that letter, Jefferson wrote:
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
"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, & 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 & State." [8]"
"Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.
The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[citation needed]
The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[14]"
I just like how the country has taken the words from a letter written by a brilliant man over the intentions of the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality. Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American. Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, "The laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God," words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.
The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.
While most recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.
Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."
This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
I just like how the country has taken the words from a letter written by a brilliant man over the intentions of the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
over the intentions of the Supreme Court? the same supreme court which held 'separation of church and state' many times?
jesus, you people need reading comprehension classes or something.
...
Have you ever heard of 'Government Policy'? Yeah... that is driven by our leaders. Leaders who get voted into position by people. Government policy driven by religious beliefs... like, possibly... consulting his 'Higher Father' on going to War... instead of his biological father who successfully waged war in that same region... with that same adversary. Sound familiar? And guess what? THAT was not a Law.
And you say, 'Don't vote for them'. Okay I won't. But, who's choice is it to make for the person who WILL vote for him based upon his Religious affiliation. You can't honestly tell me that it does not come into play... can you?
And how about a leader appointing a Supreme Court Justice based upon his/her religious belief? Not dangerous? If you are in favor of their belief system... no.
But, as you just pointed out in your Wikipedia post, this is not unconstitutional. And, in my opinion, it doesn't matter because someone could support a war anyway without the "approval of the Father."
And about the prayer in public schools, I am also against that. It goes against the first amendment. And that's why it was dealt with.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Playing devil's adovcate; there's no doubt that God and religion were on the mind of the framers, and it guided their decision making process. But wouldn't you consider a government strictly based upon and guided by the 'Judeo-Christian ideology' as you put it to be a violation of the 1st? A government that cares for, counsels and guides itself by the tenets of one religion at the exclusion of other religions is a violation of the Amendment at a legislative level.
The intent behind someone's views does not make a bird shit of difference. It's the views themselves that are under scrutiny. Someone could be pro-life if they're religious or not. It doesn't make a difference.
you're changing the subject now into something completely unrelated. I'm not talking about "someone", I'm talking about Gov. Palin who is clearly combining her religious beliefs into forming her government policies, something which makes her unqualified and hypocritical.
What is it that I am missing? That phrase is not in the constitution, it is in a document written by Thomas Jefferson. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional like you claimed:
The whole point is that her religious beliefs DOES affect us because if she were to be setting policies in this country that have religious intent, then it is unconstitutional. and, as I and the OP just showed you, her religion does affect her policies.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
But, as you just pointed out in your Wikipedia post, this is not unconstitutional. And, in my opinion, it doesn't matter because someone could support a war anyway without the "approval of the Father."
it was my post, and you didn't even read it, unfortunately, or else you'd see why you make no sense.
and it DOES matter why someone like a possible VP supports the war, and any future war.
And about the prayer in public schools, I am also against that. It goes against the first amendment. And that's why it was dealt with.
how does that go against the first amendment, but forming govt policies with religion doesn't?
you're changing the subject now into something completely unrelated. I'm not talking about "someone", I'm talking about Gov. Palin who is clearly combining her religious beliefs into forming her government policies, something which makes her unqualified and hypocritical.
Ok, then, Gov. Palin. It doesn't matter where her beliefs come from, her intention behind them. What matters is the beliefs themselves, because others can share the same beliefs as her and not be religious at all.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
What is it that I am missing? That phrase is not in the constitution, it is in a document written by Thomas Jefferson. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional like you claimed:
it was upheld by the Supreme Court over 25 times, and James Madison, the man who drafted the Bill of Rights.
I just like how the country has taken the words from a letter written by a brilliant man over the intentions of the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality. Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American. Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, "The laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God," words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.
The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.
While most recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.
Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."
This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
flat out wrong. the letter was an expression of unity written to a church that was advocating strongly against religion involvement in politics... because it felt that would taint the religion. and it has. it had nothing to do with the nation of god crap you just spouted.
also, those founding fathers thought blacks were not human and it was acceptable to treat them as pieces of property or farm animals. they also felt women should have no say in government. they were wrong about a thing or two.
how does that go against the first amendment, but forming govt policies with religion doesn't?
Because those policies are not forcing you to practice a certain religion.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Ok, then, Gov. Palin. It doesn't matter where her beliefs come from, her intention behind them. What matters is the beliefs themselves, because others can share the same beliefs as her and not be religious at all.
so people who aren't religious can believe that the war in Iraq is a task from God?
separation of church and state is about not using the state to promote a religion. you can form policy from whatever you want, as long as you arent officially promoting a religion using the government.
it was upheld by the Supreme Court over 25 times, and James Madison, the man who drafted the Bill of Rights.
Under what circumstances? Did the Supreme Court "uphold" that with regard to someone's personal beliefs being influenced by religion?
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
separation of church and state is about not using the state to promote a religion. you can form policy from whatever you want, as long as you arent officially promoting a religion using the government.
EXACTLY.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
But, as you just pointed out in your Wikipedia post, this is not unconstitutional. And, in my opinion, it doesn't matter because someone could support a war anyway without the "approval of the Father."
And about the prayer in public schools, I am also against that. It goes against the first amendment. And that's why it was dealt with.
...
Yes... yes... yes... YOU are against it. does that mean that EVERY ONE is against it? No.
The fact is... people will vote for candidates who *claim* to be of the same Religion. that is WHY people like Bush and Palin will toss their religion out there.. to pander to the 27% hard-core, Pat Robertson/Jimmy Falwell Evangelical voters who believe thaty will appoint that decisive Supreme Court Seat that will overturn Roe v. Wade or restore morning prayers in public schools or whatever they want the rest of us to believe.
You cannot honestly tell me that you believe those voters do not exist.. can you?
...
P.S. WHAT Wikipedia post? I NEVER reference Wikipedia.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
also, those founding fathers thought blacks were not human and it was acceptable to treat them as pieces of property or farm animals. they also felt women should have no say in government. they were wrong about a thing or two.
That's pretty ignorant to say. Maybe they did believe that, but that was over 200 years ago. Times change. That's what Amendments are for.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
separation of church and state is about not using the state to promote a religion. you can form policy from whatever you want, as long as you arent officially promoting a religion using the government.
wrong.
"In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom."
they weren't promoting the religion here, they were forming policies with their religion, and were denied.
Comments
That does not mean that politicians are not allowed to practice and have their beliefs influenced by religion. It means that the state itself can not be directly influenced by a religion. For instance, if Congress were to suddenly orient the entire government towards Christian principles, and make Christianity a national religion.
-Reagan
it does if, as the article seems to indicate, they are very carefully trying to hide the fact that she holds views that are unacceptable to most of america and might eventually influence her policy decisions.
Yep, too bad it's not in the constitution.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
no argument here.
You're right. But that's politics. The same thing has happened with Obama, with the media portraying him as the right candidate, and overlooking some of his flaws. The framers of the Constitution did not foresee what an incredibly manipulative role the media would eventually play in politics. I smell a possible Amendment in the future.
-Reagan
The intent behind someone's views does not make a bird shit of difference. It's the views themselves that are under scrutiny. Someone could be pro-life if they're religious or not. It doesn't make a difference.
-Reagan
even wikipedia explains its origin.
"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."
"Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[9] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[10] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[11] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." [12] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
In that letter, Jefferson wrote:
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
"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, & 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 & State." [8]"
"Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.
The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[citation needed]
The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Have you ever heard of 'Government Policy'? Yeah... that is driven by our leaders. Leaders who get voted into position by people. Government policy driven by religious beliefs... like, possibly... consulting his 'Higher Father' on going to War... instead of his biological father who successfully waged war in that same region... with that same adversary. Sound familiar? And guess what? THAT was not a Law.
And you say, 'Don't vote for them'. Okay I won't. But, who's choice is it to make for the person who WILL vote for him based upon his Religious affiliation. You can't honestly tell me that it does not come into play... can you?
And how about a leader appointing a Supreme Court Justice based upon his/her religious belief? Not dangerous? If you are in favor of their belief system... no.
Regarding This:
"In any case, I do not know a single religious person who believes that their religion should be instituted as a state religion. "
Yeah... you may not personally know these people who want to have morning prayer in our publicly funded schools... or erect 'Ten Commandments' in out public Courthouses... but, they are out there.
...
ADD: And Bush's 27% Approval? My guess... it's the same 27% that believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Church on Sunday* and voted for him based on his evangelical religion.
...
(*thanx, Tiina Fey)
Hail, Hail!!!
So therefore you were wrong in saying that Palin's views being influenced by religion is unconstitutional.
-Reagan
I just like how the country has taken the words from a letter written by a brilliant man over the intentions of the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality. Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American. Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, "The laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God," words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.
The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.
While most recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.
Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."
This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
jesus, you people need reading comprehension classes or something.
But, as you just pointed out in your Wikipedia post, this is not unconstitutional. And, in my opinion, it doesn't matter because someone could support a war anyway without the "approval of the Father."
And about the prayer in public schools, I am also against that. It goes against the first amendment. And that's why it was dealt with.
-Reagan
Playing devil's adovcate; there's no doubt that God and religion were on the mind of the framers, and it guided their decision making process. But wouldn't you consider a government strictly based upon and guided by the 'Judeo-Christian ideology' as you put it to be a violation of the 1st? A government that cares for, counsels and guides itself by the tenets of one religion at the exclusion of other religions is a violation of the Amendment at a legislative level.
What is it that I am missing? That phrase is not in the constitution, it is in a document written by Thomas Jefferson. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional like you claimed:
-Reagan
and it DOES matter why someone like a possible VP supports the war, and any future war. how does that go against the first amendment, but forming govt policies with religion doesn't?
Ok, then, Gov. Palin. It doesn't matter where her beliefs come from, her intention behind them. What matters is the beliefs themselves, because others can share the same beliefs as her and not be religious at all.
-Reagan
learn to read.
please.
flat out wrong. the letter was an expression of unity written to a church that was advocating strongly against religion involvement in politics... because it felt that would taint the religion. and it has. it had nothing to do with the nation of god crap you just spouted.
also, those founding fathers thought blacks were not human and it was acceptable to treat them as pieces of property or farm animals. they also felt women should have no say in government. they were wrong about a thing or two.
Because those policies are not forcing you to practice a certain religion.
-Reagan
do you even know what you're talking about?
Under what circumstances? Did the Supreme Court "uphold" that with regard to someone's personal beliefs being influenced by religion?
-Reagan
EXACTLY.
-Reagan
Yes... yes... yes... YOU are against it. does that mean that EVERY ONE is against it? No.
The fact is... people will vote for candidates who *claim* to be of the same Religion. that is WHY people like Bush and Palin will toss their religion out there.. to pander to the 27% hard-core, Pat Robertson/Jimmy Falwell Evangelical voters who believe thaty will appoint that decisive Supreme Court Seat that will overturn Roe v. Wade or restore morning prayers in public schools or whatever they want the rest of us to believe.
You cannot honestly tell me that you believe those voters do not exist.. can you?
...
P.S. WHAT Wikipedia post? I NEVER reference Wikipedia.
Hail, Hail!!!
That's pretty ignorant to say. Maybe they did believe that, but that was over 200 years ago. Times change. That's what Amendments are for.
-Reagan
"In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom."
they weren't promoting the religion here, they were forming policies with their religion, and were denied.