Forum: Opinion Topic: Seperation of Church and State started by: irisheyes Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 03 2004,10:20 pm
This has been brought up in the Letter to the editor, Smoking ban thread. I want to respond to several things mentioned, but thought we should start a new topic for it first.Quoted from Cpu_Slave:
That logic is supported. On October 9th, 1789 George Washington stated, "It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." Abraham Lincoln (not a founding father, but a very influential President), "The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and realigion." John Adams, "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." Theirs a lot more, but you get the point, it was obvious what their intention was.
I don't disagree with you on this point, but the people who built this country believed this to be true, if that makes them asinine, so be it. The common interpretation today is that the Seperation of Church and State (although I think its a myth) means that Government will not recognize any realigion, or allow it to be viewed by people that could be offended by it on public property. But the freedom of religion was simply not allowing the Government to pick a state sponsored donomination, as was the case in England with the Anglican church and the persecution of other donominations as a result. I'm just stating the facts for this to back up the original meaning of the Freedom of Religion, as I think the Constitution has been reinterpreted so many times in the past 50 years its losing its meaning. If anyone disagrees I'd be interested if their was any proof to contradict this. Posted by Liberal on Mar. 04 2004,11:35 am
Althought the exact phrase "Seperation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights there are many examples in their writings that show the intention of the framers was to seperate the two.
(James Madison wrote this to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia) Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 04 2004,11:38 am
Just a couple of thoughts on the issue:The Constitution doesn't prohibit recognition of a religion, it is contained in the very first sentence in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was not clear on a number of issues, so the Bill of Rights was added in 1791.
I agree, Irisheyes, that while the framers of the Constitution were Christians, they obviously wanted no formal religion recognized by the government--like the Angelican Church. This basic tenet has been so actively corrupted by "activist" courts--"making law from the bench"--that it is unrecognizable. It is not only in the issue of religion that the activist courts make law and policy--the liberal Courts of the Roosevelt administration suddenly "found" that the Federal government had vast powers, to regulate firearms, dam rivers, set up untold numbers of Federal agencies (and let those agencies make their own laws, without being voted on by a deliberative or legislative body)--and in general, become all-intrusive into our everyday life. Look at the size of the federal government prior to 1932--a fraction of the size it was to become only 9 years later, on the eve of WW II. In this respect, "activist" courts that suddenly "find" that the Constitution can be interpreted liberally are no different than Moslem Mullahs issuing their edicts! Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 04 2004,11:59 am
First Amendment: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. Jefferson referenced and interpreted the bolded text above in response to a letter from a Baptist association that asked him why, as President, he wasn't declaring national days of fasting and thanksgiving.
The bracketed words were going to be deleted by Jefferson to avoid pissing off allied politicians that would see the letter but the Library of Congress' copy of the letter retains the text and Jefferson's margin note that contains his motivations for "removing" the text. Jefferson was one of the primary architects of the Constitution and much of our rhetoric against England. Hence, his words can be considered a clear picture of "what the framers intended." Far more than someone just reading the letter of the law and not its intent. The framers wanted religion and government to be separate: get over it. |