Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Seperation of Church and State
artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Mon 10/03/11 05:38 PM
literally then, it says they shall make no 'laws' Legal precedent becomes law. Examples: McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional. Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952) Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause. Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional. Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968) State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985) State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional. Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation. Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause. Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992) Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies. Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993) City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion. These "laws" do not prohibit anybody from pracicing their religion. The probibit governments fro promoting religion. Again. Can you cite a single law prohibiting a person from practicing their religion? If you can't, no skin off of my nose.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Mon 10/03/11 05:43 PM Edited by adj4u on Mon 10/03/11 05:46 PM
Main Entry: law Pronunciation: primarystresslodot Function: noun 1 a : a rule of conduct or action laid down and enforced by the supreme governing authority (as the legislature) of a community or established by custom b : the whole collection of such rules <the law of the land> c : the control brought about by enforcing rules <forces of law and order> d : trial in a court to decide what is just and right according to the laws <go to law> e : an agent or agency for enforcing laws 2 capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures -- compare HAGIOGRAPHA, PROPHETS 3 : a basic rule or principle <the laws of poetry> 4 a : the profession of a lawyer b : the branch of knowledge that deals with laws and their interpretation and application <study law> 5 : a rule or principle stating something that always works in the same way under the same conditions <the law of gravity> http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=law ------------------------------------------------------------- so according to 1 a congress has been opening sessions with a prayer since its inception thus it is customary to open meetings with prayer making it permisable per merriam-webster dictionary and the custom of congress even tho i disagree -- but someone wanted a law permitting religion in govt buildings

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Mon 10/03/11 05:54 PM
literally then, it says they shall make no 'laws' Legal precedent becomes law. Examples: McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional. Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952) Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause. Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional. Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968) State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985) State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional. Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation. Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause. Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992) Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies. Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993) City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion. These "laws" do not prohibit anybody from pracicing their religion. The probibit governments fro promoting religion. Again. Can you cite a single law prohibiting a person from practicing their religion? If you can't, no skin off of my nose. listed the example while you were looking up my proof reread my posts thx

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Mon 10/03/11 05:55 PM
well gotta go it was fun having a good civil conversation thank you to everyone

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Mon 10/03/11 07:26 PM
Like I said before the founders of this country did not know how to keep religion out of the government well at all. Although they had the idea and knew it was not a good mixture. Considering they were racial discriminatory (white racists)and gender biased, which was normal for that time, in this country, they had some good ideas. The reason separation came into the wordage used is because in order to "not respect" and not make laws that restrict there has to be separation and removing. The removing part is happening now since they failed on that in earlier times.

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Mon 10/03/11 08:05 PM
Established laws prohibits Governments from practicing religion, but I don't know of a single law that prohibits people. Please cite one. read the thread I didn't think so. they are examples listed if you dont see them oh well no biggie to me Those examples you gave earlier in the thread were not prohibiting people from practicing religion.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 10/04/11 02:12 AM
Like I said before the founders of this country did not know how to keep religion out of the government well at all. Although they had the idea and knew it was not a good mixture. Considering they were racial discriminatory (white racists)and gender biased, which was normal for that time, in this country, they had some good ideas. The reason separation came into the wordage used is because in order to "not respect" and not make laws that restrict there has to be separation and removing. The removing part is happening now since they failed on that in earlier times. how is removing not restricting,,? the laws cannot respect OR restrict,, in other words, people have the right to their own individual beliefs, without being mandated to believe anything OR being restricted from believing and without being MANDATED to express those beliefs or RESTRICTED from expressing those beliefs the clause refers to LAWS , not peoples individual beliefs or expressions of

jrbogie Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 2490	Tue 10/04/11 04:56 AM
seperation of church and state is a paraphrase of whats in the constitution and not ACTUALLY in the constitution it would more accurately be called seperation of RELIGION and state(although congress is federal and not state) no the congress is not state but numerous court rulings have decided that the separation clause applies to any government entity. to date, I know of no 'laws' on the books requiring or denying anyone their beliefs or non beliefs... ah, but many have tried. a recent case heard in a federal disctict court in pennsylvania struck down a local school board that had required that 'intelligent design' be taught as a science subject alongside evolution. the court's decision was based on intelligent design being a concept in the bible which is paramount to the christian religion. in the court's opinion the term 'intelligent design' was simply 'creation' in disquise. although there are plenty of policies which restrict EXPRESSION of such beliefs,,, individual religious or non religious beliefs are fairly well protected in this country,, in my opinion,,, besides the restrictions on speech and expression which exist to keep beliefs 'in the closet' but belief is not in the closet. you are free to espouse your beliefs anywhere that does not require government sponsorship.

jrbogie Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 2490	Tue 10/04/11 05:12 AM
Main Entry: law Pronunciation: primarystresslodot Function: noun 1 a : a rule of conduct or action laid down and enforced by the supreme governing authority (as the legislature) of a community or established by custom b : the whole collection of such rules <the law of the land> c : the control brought about by enforcing rules <forces of law and order> d : trial in a court to decide what is just and right according to the laws <go to law> e : an agent or agency for enforcing laws 2 capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures -- compare HAGIOGRAPHA, PROPHETS 3 : a basic rule or principle <the laws of poetry> 4 a : the profession of a lawyer b : the branch of knowledge that deals with laws and their interpretation and application <study law> 5 : a rule or principle stating something that always works in the same way under the same conditions <the law of gravity> http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=law ------------------------------------------------------------- so according to 1 a congress has been opening sessions with a prayer since its inception thus it is customary to open meetings with prayer making it permisable per merriam-webster dictionary and the custom of congress even tho i disagree -- but someone wanted a law permitting religion in govt buildings this is done by proclation and is not a law permitting religion in government buildings.

jrbogie Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 2490	Tue 10/04/11 05:18 AM
Like I said before the founders of this country did not know how to keep religion out of the government well at all. Although they had the idea and knew it was not a good mixture. Considering they were racial discriminatory (white racists)and gender biased, which was normal for that time, in this country, they had some good ideas. The reason separation came into the wordage used is because in order to "not respect" and not make laws that restrict there has to be separation and removing. The removing part is happening now since they failed on that in earlier times. how is removing not restricting,,? the laws cannot respect OR restrict,, in other words, people have the right to their own individual beliefs, without being mandated to believe anything OR being restricted from believing and without being MANDATED to express those beliefs or RESTRICTED from expressing those beliefs the clause refers to LAWS , not peoples individual beliefs or expressions of removing laws that violate the establishment clause does not restrict you from practicing your religion. there are two different clauses in effect. your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with the topic of the thread which is the separation of church and state.

jrbogie Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 2490	Tue 10/04/11 05:26 AM
where is your proof of your statement What is it you are asking me to prove? proof of the statute of separation of church and state i dont think there is one yes there is. the establishment clause in the first amendment has been ruled by numerous court decisions to keep religion and government separate and by court precident is commonly referred to as 'separation of church and state.' and the second amendment is as close as it gets but everyone forgets the prohibition of law against practicing ones religion i've not a clue how you see that the second amendment has anything whatsoever to do with religion.

jrbogie Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 2490	Tue 10/04/11 05:29 AM Edited by jrbogie on Tue 10/04/11 05:33 AM
no where in the constitution doe it say separation of church and state not literally. but the establishment clause in the first amendment has been ruled by countless courts in such that 'separation of church and state' has become court precident. that's like saying that nowhere does the constitution give a woman the right to choose abortion. litterally it doesn't but roe v wade was decided on the basis of the fifth and fourteenth amendments which guarantees women equal due process of law as regards their bodies just as men.

jrbogie Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 2490	Tue 10/04/11 05:42 AM
this is how it is in the constitution==== ------------------------------------------------------ Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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/const.html#Preamble ---------------------------------------------- notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal i'm not familiar with the term, 'public person' nor have i seen a law stopping a 'public person' from practicing their religious beliefs. the establishment clause does, however, restrict the practice of religion at government sponsored 'public events'. just as all speech is not free, laws prevent one from false fire alarms in theaters, etc., all practice of religion is not unrestricted. it is restricted in public schools for instance unless done privately. no required morning prayer for instance.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 10/04/11 07:48 AM
Established laws prohibits Governments from practicing religion, but I don't know of a single law that prohibits people. Please cite one. read the thread I didn't think so. they are examples listed if you dont see them oh well no biggie to me Those examples you gave earlier in the thread were not prohibiting people from practicing religion. [/quote yes they are and an explanation is posted in a later post as to why they are

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Tue 10/04/11 08:20 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 10/04/11 08:28 AM
The short answer, they are not. WHY? Because powerful people want it that way, becuase not enough people with power care to separate. Right now the religious are a very powerful group and to get elected means to cowtow to the religious on both sides, which means if you took a serious stance for separation you would not get elected. When forces are constantly trying to seep there religion into the government it takes a constant effort to keep separation. Separation is more than just government not prohibiting people from practicing, its the government not playing favorites, also the government not sponsoring, the government not using the law to enforce religious doctrines. Here in many counties the selling of alcohol is illegal on Sundays. This is a clear issue of separation, but the lawyers here will disagree. No amount of word smithing changes the fact that the local law was created to enforce a religious doctrine. not literally. but the establishment clause in the first amendment has been ruled by countless courts in such that 'separation of church and state' has become court precident. that's like saying that nowhere does the constitution give a woman the right to choose abortion. litterally it doesn't but roe v wade was decided on the basis of the fifth and fourteenth amendments which guarantees women equal due process of law as regards their bodies just as men. Yup its called intent. The intent is clear, those that seek to pervert wish to spin the intent, or ignore the intent.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 10/04/11 08:33 AM
Like I said before the founders of this country did not know how to keep religion out of the government well at all. Although they had the idea and knew it was not a good mixture. Considering they were racial discriminatory (white racists)and gender biased, which was normal for that time, in this country, they had some good ideas. The reason separation came into the wordage used is because in order to "not respect" and not make laws that restrict there has to be separation and removing. The removing part is happening now since they failed on that in earlier times. how is removing not restricting,,? the laws cannot respect OR restrict,, in other words, people have the right to their own individual beliefs, without being mandated to believe anything OR being restricted from believing and without being MANDATED to express those beliefs or RESTRICTED from expressing those beliefs the clause refers to LAWS , not peoples individual beliefs or expressions of removing laws that violate the establishment clause does not restrict you from practicing your religion. there are two different clauses in effect. your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with the topic of the thread which is the separation of church and state. Removing laws do violate expression. It may not be my individual expression but it is someones.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Tue 10/04/11 09:17 AM
Removing laws do violate expression. It may not be my individual expression but it is someones. Your going to have to unpack what you mean here, and it would be grand to have an example.

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Tue 10/04/11 09:33 AM
Established laws prohibits Governments from practicing religion, but I don't know of a single law that prohibits people. Please cite one. read the thread I didn't think so. they are examples listed if you dont see them oh well no biggie to me Those examples you gave earlier in the thread were not prohibiting people from practicing religion. yes they are and an explanation is posted in a later post as to why they are I saw no explanation that made what you've said true. No one is being told they cannot practice religion. You just seem bothered that certain things were not allowed in government or the public however that is not making it so people cannot practice the religion of their choice.

jrbogie Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 2490	Tue 10/04/11 09:36 AM
Like I said before the founders of this country did not know how to keep religion out of the government well at all. Although they had the idea and knew it was not a good mixture. Considering they were racial discriminatory (white racists)and gender biased, which was normal for that time, in this country, they had some good ideas. The reason separation came into the wordage used is because in order to "not respect" and not make laws that restrict there has to be separation and removing. The removing part is happening now since they failed on that in earlier times. how is removing not restricting,,? the laws cannot respect OR restrict,, in other words, people have the right to their own individual beliefs, without being mandated to believe anything OR being restricted from believing and without being MANDATED to express those beliefs or RESTRICTED from expressing those beliefs the clause refers to LAWS , not peoples individual beliefs or expressions of removing laws that violate the establishment clause does not restrict you from practicing your religion. there are two different clauses in effect. your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with the topic of the thread which is the separation of church and state. Removing laws do violate expression. It may not be my individual expression but it is someones. removing laws that recognize a religion by government violate nothing in the constitution according to numerous court rulings.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 10/04/11 10:38 AM
Removing laws do violate expression. It may not be my individual expression but it is someones. Your going to have to unpack what you mean here, and it would be grand to have an example. Ok for example, the "in God we trust" on the dollar. Someone some where at some time decided to use that as an expression of his or her beliefs. If someone else decides to remove it then fine, but if there is a law stating that it can't be shown then that is a law restricting that persons expression of religion. I mean someone created the art for which the money was designed from. They should be allowed to express their religious views if they chose to. That is just one example.