Should We End Separation of Church & State?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Should We End Separation of Church & State?

Post #1

Post by myth-one.com »


In thanking the evangelicals for their support, Donald Trump wrote: . . . the support that they've given me has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight.

They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with the loss of their tax exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away.

I am going to work very hard to repeal that language, and to protect free speech for all Americans!
If the state is not protected from the church, the church will eventually become the state.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Iraq are a few examples.

The latest example is the Islamic State, or ISIS.

Is this the starting point for the Christian State In America -- or CSIA?

Of course, then CSIA would need to defeat ISIS so that Christianity could be spread to all nations -- as prophesied in the Bible.

Armageddon?

Does Trump have a good idea here?

4gold
Sage
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Should We End Separation of Church & State?

Post #11

Post by 4gold »

[Replying to myth-one.com]

Even if we repealed the Johnson amendment, I doubt it would make much difference. Churches already de facto endorse candidates. Just try to find a Sunday where Hillary isn't in a black church, or where the white evangelical leaders aren't denouncing the liberal agenda.

But to answer your title question, no, we should not end separation of church and state. We should end secularism in favor of pluralism, though.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #12

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
Divine Insight wrote: Trump fully supports religious fanaticism. His choice of vice president reveals this to the hilt. If Trump gets in with Pence as VP you can rest assured that they will indeed work very hard to create a United States that is run based on Christian Theocracy.

In fact, if Trump gets in this will show the entire world just how extremely vulnerable a free democratic system can be.
I think a lot of people are noticing that the way that democracies are run doesn't WORK any more. The world has changed, and our democracies haven't.

And now, we are looking at the HUGE problems that it can cause. We need to re-think our democracies, because I agree. The way that things are now, democracies ARE very vulnerable.

We get idiots like Trump running for the most powerful man on earth.... THAT'S making us all vulnerable. And I would say that's insane.

:)

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #13

Post by bluethread »

2Dbunk wrote: [Replying to post 3 by bluethread]
. . . The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. but to limit the federal government from establishing a state church. . . .
No . . . not exactly word for word, though the courts through the years have consistently (more or less) ruled that the religion phrase of the First Amendment is exactly that: a wall separating religion from government.. Thomas Jefferson memorialized that expression containing "wall" in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Church.

James Madison, arguably the author of the US Constitution, penned that phrase into the first part of the First Amendment for good reason. He had experienced that first hand when Virginia was studying taxing the people in support of a state church, proposed by none other than Patrick Henry. Madison opposed the Bill, won a continuance to the next legislative session and prepared/circulated a document outlining 15 reasons to vote it down: His Memorial & Remonstrance Carried the day and Henry's Bill was defeated. IMO that treatise is the model for the religion phrase of our Constitution. the First Amendment is exactly that: a wall separating religion from government
That was a state decision based on a vote, not a prohibition of the federal constitution. It was also a matter of government taxation, not speech. The establishment clause of the first amendment was not put there to protect the federal government. It was put there to protect the citizenry and assure their right to free speech. Therefore, a gag order on the clergy is a violation of the first amendment.

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Post #14

Post by 2Dbunk »

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]
bluethread wrote:

Quote:
. . . The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. but to limit the federal government from establishing a state church. . . .


2Dbunk wrote:

No . . . not exactly word for word, though the courts through the years have consistently (more or less) ruled that the religion phrase of the First Amendment is exactly that: a wall separating religion from government.. Thomas Jefferson memorialized that expression containing "wall" in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Church.

James Madison, arguably the author of the US Constitution, penned that phrase into the first part of the First Amendment for good reason. He had experienced that first hand when Virginia was studying taxing the people in support of a state church, proposed by none other than Patrick Henry. Madison opposed the Bill, won a continuance to the next legislative session and prepared/circulated a document outlining 15 reasons to vote it down: His Memorial & Remonstrance Carried the day and Henry's Bill was defeated. IMO that treatise is the model for the religion phrase of our Constitution. the First Amendment is exactly that: a wall separating religion from government
bluethread wrote:

That was a state decision based on a vote, not a prohibition of the federal constitution. It was also a matter of government taxation, not speech. The establishment clause of the first amendment was not put there to protect the federal government. It was put there to protect the citizenry and assure their right to free speech. Therefore, a gag order on the clergy is a violation of the first amendment.
Yes it was a state vote -- a few years before the Continental Congress. Madison was a state assemblyman at the time. Fast forward to the Continental Congress where Madison was a representative to that Congress from the state of Virginia. He, with the assistance of Thomas Jefferson (abroad in France), virtually penned the US Constitution and its first ten amendments. Do you think for a minute that he didn't draw on his experience in Virginia when doing this? And do you think taxation and speech are not intertwined?

If you have read Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" how can you infer the conclusions you state? Please give it another read and see if what I say doesn't make sense!
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Should We End Separation of Church & State?

Post #15

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

myth-one.com wrote:
In thanking the evangelicals for their support, Donald Trump wrote: . . . the support that they've given me has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight.

They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with the loss of their tax exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away.

I am going to work very hard to repeal that language, and to protect free speech for all Americans!
If the state is not protected from the church, the church will eventually become the state.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Iraq are a few examples.

The latest example is the Islamic State, or ISIS.

Is this the starting point for the Christian State In America -- or CSIA?

Of course, then CSIA would need to defeat ISIS so that Christianity could be spread to all nations -- as prophesied in the Bible.

Armageddon?

Does Trump have a good idea here?
When you ask the question "Should we end separation of church and state?", what "we" are you speaking of? Muslims for example are gaining in number in this country, while the number is Christians is dropping like a stone. If we "end" separation of church and state, what reason do you have to suppose that the eventual implementation of Sharia Law in the US would not then become a real possibility?

On the other hand, separation of church and state was implemented to protect everyone's right to believe and worship as they choose.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Re: Should We End Separation of Church & State?

Post #16

Post by myth-one.com »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
myth-one.com wrote:
In thanking the evangelicals for their support, Donald Trump wrote: . . . the support that they've given me has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight.

They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with the loss of their tax exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away.

I am going to work very hard to repeal that language, and to protect free speech for all Americans!
If the state is not protected from the church, the church will eventually become the state.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Iraq are a few examples.

The latest example is the Islamic State, or ISIS.

Is this the starting point for the Christian State In America -- or CSIA?

Of course, then CSIA would need to defeat ISIS so that Christianity could be spread to all nations -- as prophesied in the Bible.

Armageddon?

Does Trump have a good idea here?
When you ask the question "Should we end separation of church and state?", what "we" are you speaking of?
We being American citizens.

Or perhaps those citizens who care (voters).
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Muslims for example are gaining in number in this country, while the number is Christians is dropping like a stone. If we "end" separation of church and state, what reason do you have to suppose that the eventual implementation of Sharia Law in the US would not then become a real possibility?
None!

That's why the clown nominee saying such things is dangerous.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:On the other hand, separation of church and state was implemented to protect everyone's right to believe and worship as they choose.
But religious groups have always had to modify their practices to fit within secular laws in the USA.

For example, having multiple wives and animal sacrifices are illegal.

So it is not something new to require Muslims desiring Sharia law (as an example) to abide by the US laws instead!

We need what little separation of church and state remains at present!!

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Should We End Separation of Church & State?

Post #17

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to post 16 by myth-one.com]
myth-one.com wrote: We being American citizens.

Or perhaps those citizens who care (voters).
This is interesting. Because I have noticed that Fox News like to throw are the notion that the "American people" want this or that. As an American citizen of several generations in duration, the things that Fox News suggests that the "American people" are demanding almost never represents anything that I or anyone I am acquainted with are actually in favor of. In fact Fox News seems to think that the outcome of the last two presidential elections were somehow incorrect or fraudulent. Aren't Presidents elected by American "citizens who care?"
myth-one.com wrote: But religious groups have always had to modify their practices to fit within secular laws in the USA.

For example, having multiple wives and animal sacrifices are illegal.

So it is not something new to require Muslims desiring Sharia law (as an example) to abide by the US laws instead!

We need what little separation of church and state remains at present!!
If laws prohibiting the state from being involved in religion are repealed, when Muslims become the majority, they can declare Sharia Law to be the law of the land.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Re: Should We End Separation of Church & State?

Post #18

Post by myth-one.com »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: [Replying to post 16 by myth-one.com]
myth-one.com wrote: We being American citizens.

Or perhaps those citizens who care (voters).
This is interesting. Because I have noticed that Fox News like to throw are the notion that the "American people" want this or that. As an American citizen of several generations in duration, the things that Fox News suggests that the "American people" are demanding almost never represents anything that I or anyone I am acquainted with are actually in favor of. In fact Fox News seems to think that the outcome of the last two presidential elections were somehow incorrect or fraudulent. Aren't Presidents elected by American "citizens who care?"
myth-one.com wrote: But religious groups have always had to modify their practices to fit within secular laws in the USA.

For example, having multiple wives and animal sacrifices are illegal.

So it is not something new to require Muslims desiring Sharia law (as an example) to abide by the US laws instead!

We need what little separation of church and state remains at present!!
If laws prohibiting the state from being involved in religion are repealed, when Muslims become the majority, they can declare Sharia Law to be the law of the land.




[center]CHILLING and absolutely correct!

What a tragic end to a wonderful experiment.

Thanks to all the great people who gave their lives to make it possible.

Our only hope is that Muslims who get a taste of US democracy fall in love with it!

As we did.

Not I, but we!

Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, . . . the tired, the poor, the war weary, huddled masses yearning to live free!

Seems I heard that somewhere before.[/center]

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Should We End Separation of Church & State?

Post #19

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

myth-one.com wrote:
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: [Replying to post 16 by myth-one.com]
myth-one.com wrote: We being American citizens.

Or perhaps those citizens who care (voters).
This is interesting. Because I have noticed that Fox News like to throw are the notion that the "American people" want this or that. As an American citizen of several generations in duration, the things that Fox News suggests that the "American people" are demanding almost never represents anything that I or anyone I am acquainted with are actually in favor of. In fact Fox News seems to think that the outcome of the last two presidential elections were somehow incorrect or fraudulent. Aren't Presidents elected by American "citizens who care?"
myth-one.com wrote: But religious groups have always had to modify their practices to fit within secular laws in the USA.

For example, having multiple wives and animal sacrifices are illegal.

So it is not something new to require Muslims desiring Sharia law (as an example) to abide by the US laws instead!

We need what little separation of church and state remains at present!!
If laws prohibiting the state from being involved in religion are repealed, when Muslims become the majority, they can declare Sharia Law to be the law of the land.




[center]CHILLING and absolutely correct!

What a tragic end to a wonderful experiment.

Thanks to all the great people who gave their lives to make it possible.

Our only hope is that Muslims who get a taste of US democracy fall in love with it!

As we did.

Not I, but we!

Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, . . . the tired, the poor, the war weary, huddled masses yearning to live free!

Seems I heard that somewhere before.[/center]
In actual fact, while it is true that Christianity is in decline in the USA, and Islam is on the rise, it is the group known as "nones" which have made the largest increase. This is the group that identifies with no religion at all, and have risen from about 5% shortly before the turn of the new century, to almost 25% today. This appears to be the group that will have numerical superiority by the middle of this century, just as it already does in many European countries. I myself was way ahead of the curve on this one.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

Post Reply