Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Separation of church and state.
3 years ago  ::  Feb 10, 2012 - 5:51PM #21
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 10, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Marcion wrote:


Feb 9, 2012 -- 5:44PM, teilhard wrote:


My own Favorite Theologian on Church-State Questions is (the late) John Courtney Murray, S.J. ...


He understood that The Authority of The State and The Authority of The Church are DIFFERENT ...


ONLY The State has "Temporal" Authority, i.e., can collect Taxes, raise an Army, conduct War, pass and enact Laws and Statutes, operate Law Courts, etc., etc. ...


BUT ... Since The Authority of The Church is PURELY "Spiritual" Authority, The Church therefore has Authority that is SUPERIOR to that of The State, such that The Church can COMMAND The State to do ITS Duty ... (A Recent shining Example was St. Archbishop Romero's Sermon -- "In the Name of God I beg of you ...  I COMMAND you: STOP  THE  KILLING ...")


So ... Murray "got it" correctly in my Opinion, in understanding that the proper INTERFACE of Church and State is in the Society ... So clearly, since Bishops, Clergy, and Laity are CITIZENS, the important Distinction is most properly The DISTINCTION of Church and State rather than a supposed "Separation" of Church and State ... 




Of course he understood, he was a Jesuit. Jesuits, as a whole, are brilliant men and as a consequence leave the church eventually.


I have many friends who are former Jesuits.



The ones who stay in the church are devious and perverse.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 9:15AM #22
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

The catholic bishops are rejoicing going back to the Middle Ages. If Obama thinks rolling over for the bishops is going to guarantee the catholic vote he is sadly mistaken, Birth control is a non-issue for most catholics.


It also demonstrates that Obama is just another slimeball politician who will do anything to get re=elected.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 11:19AM #23
teilhard
Posts: 52,298

Anti-Catholic Bigotry is alive in the Pages of Belief-Net ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 11:20AM #24
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,999

US Constitution: 1st Amendment ....extract


Congress shall make no LAW
(a) respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or
(b) prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof (citizens' belief systems)"


aka


(a) there can be no US federal "Church" imposed on its citizens of the states...e.g. ~Church of England
(b) the feds may not pass any laws which abridge or control the doctrines and practices of "religions".


Please note: >>>No mention of " Separation of Church and State".<<<
It is a platitude created by a liberal SCOTUS....The Judicial Branch improperly "made LAW"!
The "Miranda warning" and "Roe vs. Wade" are other examples of the Supremes "making LAW".


...the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders;
and even Jefferson's explanation of HIS PHRASE
is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts APPLY it today.
"Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant...


www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.a...


The Court’s position has also become increasingly controversial
as the role of government has expanded through the years.
Because the government is involved in many aspects of community life today,
from maintaining the public school system
to administering many social benefits,
preserving a strict and court-made WALL
between federal and state governments AND any religious ideas / ideals
pushes "religion" to the outer margins of public life.
Many Americans believe this is a result that the Country’s founding fathers never intended.


www.allaboutpopularissues.org/separation...


www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-P...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 11:49AM #25
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,169

Feb 11, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


US Constitution: 1st Amendment ....extract


Congress shall make no LAW
(a) respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or
(b) prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof (citizens' belief systems)"


aka


(a) there can be no US federal "Church" imposed on its citizens of the states...e.g. ~Church of England
(b) the feds may not pass any laws which abridge or control the doctrines and practices of "religions".


Please note: >>>No mention of " Separation of Church and State".<<<
It is a platitude created by a liberal SCOTUS....The Judicial Branch improperly "made LAW"!
The "Miranda warning" and "Roe vs. Wade" are other examples of the Supremes "making LAW".


...the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders;
and even Jefferson's explanation of HIS PHRASE
is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts APPLY it today.
"Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant...


www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.a...


The Court’s position has also become increasingly controversial
as the role of government has expanded through the years.
Because the government is involved in many aspects of community life today,
from maintaining the public school system
to administering many social benefits,
preserving a strict and court-made WALL
between federal and state governments AND any religious ideas / ideals
pushes "religion" to the outer margins of public life.
Many Americans believe this is a result that the Country’s founding fathers never intended.


www.allaboutpopularissues.org/separation...


www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-P...





Amendment I


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


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… The encumbrances, limitations, restrictions of  the first amendment  are upon the congress, the law making body of  the Government. Religious beliefs are like political beliefs, brand of choice in products, color, choice of a way eggs are cooked,  etc.   A persons religious belief may influence  the way they  vote,  and for  whom they vote.  A religion can the it followers doctrine abut and  subject they wish  . If they start requiring a certain vote, then they are politicking not practicing a religion.   When operating a hospital as a business, and employing people, and if insurance is part of the salary package, the religious beliefs are not applicable.  An individual can go to hospital and a hospital  cane have  a no abortion  or contraceptives policy  or the individual  can say I do not want a an abortion or contraceptive medicines    The employee who has insurance as part of their salary can go to  a doctor/or hospital that offers abortion/contraceptives and the insurance cover those .


When a religious organization operates a business, then they  are outside the first amendment  rights application.  Bookstores and religious art shops have to collect sales taxes and pay property and business taxes.


Religions that want to practice politics are no long religions they are PACS and are subject to government  (congressional)regulations 

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 12:00PM #26
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 11, 2012 -- 11:19AM, teilhard wrote:


Anti-Catholic Bigotry is alive in the Pages of Belief-Net ...



According to Teilhard any criticism of the Roman Catholic Church is "anti-Catholic bigotry."

Moderated by rangerken on Feb 11, 2012 - 12:49PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 12:03PM #27
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 11, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


US Constitution: 1st Amendment ....extract


Congress shall make no LAW
(a) respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or
(b) prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof (citizens' belief systems)"


aka


(a) there can be no US federal "Church" imposed on its citizens of the states...e.g. ~Church of England
(b) the feds may not pass any laws which abridge or control the doctrines and practices of "religions".


Please note: >>>No mention of " Separation of Church and State".<<<



Irrelevant. Separation of church and state is a good thing, and many of us want it. In fact, we insist upon it and cannot feel safe without it. We are not going to allow theocrats to take over and resume burning non-Christians at the stake.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 1:08PM #28
TPaine
Posts: 9,497

Feb 11, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


US Constitution: 1st Amendment ....extract


Congress shall make no LAW
(a) respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or
(b) prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof (citizens' belief systems)"


aka


(a) there can be no US federal "Church" imposed on its citizens of the states...e.g. ~Church of England
(b) the feds may not pass any laws which abridge or control the doctrines and practices of "religions".


Please note: >>>No mention of " Separation of Church and State".<<<
It is a platitude created by a liberal SCOTUS....The Judicial Branch improperly "made LAW"!
The "Miranda warning" and "Roe vs. Wade" are other examples of the Supremes "making LAW".


...the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders;
and even Jefferson's explanation of HIS PHRASE
is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts APPLY it today.
"Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant...


www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.a...



WallBuilders is well known for making up quotes and attributing them to the Founders. They have been caught doing so on several occasions. David Barton's degree is in religious education, not history or law. Barton now denies he ever said Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptist stated the Wall of Separation was "one-directional," but his1990 recording of America's Godly Heritage clearly states,

"On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."


The fact is the letter says nothing about a one-way wall.


A concept of a one-way wall is not mentioned in Jefferson's letter.

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802


Jefferson doubled down on his wall of separation in 1808 when he wrote to the Virginia Baptists.

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
     We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." -- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)


He also wrote in his autobiography

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion 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 Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821


The author of the First Amendment, James Madision wrote

"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government" -- James Madison (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).


Madison also wrote

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." -- James Madison (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).




The Court’s position has also become increasingly controversial
as the role of government has expanded through the years.
Because the government is involved in many aspects of community life today,
from maintaining the public school system
to administering many social benefits,
preserving a strict and court-made WALL
between federal and state governments AND any religious ideas / ideals
pushes "religion" to the outer margins of public life.
Many Americans believe this is a result that the Country’s founding fathers never intended.


www.allaboutpopularissues.org/separation...


www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-P...



The Constitution is a living document. If the Framers hadn't expected it to be changed according to the changing conditions in society they wouldn't have included Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


Are you suggesting that SCOTUS should not have said segregation was unconstitutional, defended privacy rights which although not mentioned by name were implied under the 3rd, 4th, 5th, & 9th Amendments, or secured the power of incorporation under the 14th Amendment?

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case." Thomas Paine:
Dissertation on First Principles of Government (July 1795)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 3:06PM #29
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,999

The "WALL" was not created by Jefferson!


It was created by a succession of federal and state court cases that stretched the 1st Amendment beyond its clear words and intent.


For a "constitutionalist" who believes that the Supremes should not "MAKE LAW", this FACT is VERY "relevant" and material...your Honor!


For example, where does the USConst. clearly state and define a "right to privacy".


It doesn't! It was a "penumbral" right invented by the SCOTUS.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 3:29PM #30
teilhard
Posts: 52,298

The Right NOT to be Subjected to unWarranted Search and Seizure is by Definition a Right to Privacy ...


The Fact that The Consitution never specifically mentions "Telephones" does NOT mean that The Guv'Mint is therefore allowed to listen-in to Telephone Conversations without a Warrant ...


Feb 11, 2012 -- 3:06PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


The "WALL" was not created by Jefferson!


It was created by a succession of federal and state court cases that stretched the 1st Amendment beyond its clear words and intent.


For a "constitutionalist" who believes that the Supremes should not "MAKE LAW", this FACT is VERY "relevant" and material...your Honor!


For example, where does the USConst. clearly state and define a "right to privacy".


It doesn't! It was a "penumbral" right invented by the SCOTUS.





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook