Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next

Topic: Seperation of Church and State
yzrabbit1 Joined Fri 09/28/07 Posts: 1531	Thu 03/13/08 09:44 PM
Supreme Court since 1947 The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case which dealt with a state law that allowed the use of government funds for transportation to religious schools. While the ruling upheld the state law allowing taxpayer funding of transportation to religious schools as constitutional, Everson was also the first case to hold the Establishment Clause applicable to the state legislatures as well as Congress, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1962, the Supreme Court extended this analysis to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational..... THose of you confused by this the top paragraph shows how separation of church and state "definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence" in 1947 So from 1947 on the phrase was part of our legal system. The second paragraph shows how in 1962 the Supreme Court used that idea to say that prayer in school is not allowed even if it is non-denominational. so you can't just say any old God. that is a no no.

Guitarjizzard Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 165	Thu 03/13/08 09:45 PM
all of this has been covered since the first page. im guessing minds wont be changed if they havent already

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Thu 03/13/08 09:46 PM
Read what? The law striking down prayer in schools? Already knew about that one, thanks. And again saying the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance isn't praying. no it's not. many people don't agree with it being there however, so it probably shouldn't On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in favor of Newdow. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God" [2].

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Thu 03/13/08 09:46 PM
Their religious affiliations are listed under their names. There are quite a few with no religious affiliation if you go down the list. I was referring to the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence which actually had the word "God" in it. You provide a list of the signers of the Articles of Confederation which had no such word? (insert rolling eyes here) Nice try. All three documents are our framework, right? All three documents don't contain the word "God", right? Which is what we were discussing. Thanks for playing. So one document contains the word god and we are even debating that the framers did not want religion to be part of the government???? Well, I think that speaks volumes..LOL Uh...who was debating that? I merely said all of the Framers (again referring to the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independance, again the sole document with the word "God" in it of the three) were religious and believed in a "God" and that is why the word was in that document. Try reading posts before jumping in next time. Maybe you'll get what people are talking about. Now you are flipflopping on this issue. But that is cool. Whatever. I believe that god should be kept at home where it belongs. Not in a government for all people including those who do not believe in god or those who believe in more than one god, etc....... Have no issue with the religious doing their thing in church or at home or at their religious functions, none at all.

yzrabbit1 Joined Fri 09/28/07 Posts: 1531	Thu 03/13/08 09:47 PM
Well some people are trying to say only the framers can talk about religion. that is no true. We make the laws of this country

toastedoranges Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 11042	Thu 03/13/08 09:47 PM
On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in favor of Newdow. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God" [2]. that's really not relivant to what i'm saying. MANY people in the united states don't believe in that tag line. citing the supreme court doesn't always prove anything, many a time have they passed something that's not entirely just.

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Thu 03/13/08 09:48 PM
all of this has been covered since the first page. im guessing minds wont be changed if they havent already some people are just now getting to threads and have a right to voice their opinions whatever they are

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Thu 03/13/08 09:48 PM
First, there is no "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution and it is not supported by the 1st amendment in any way whatsoever. The concept of "Separation of church and state" is a misapplication of a letter between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Please note the US Constitution was ratified and adopted in 1787. There is a gap of 15 years between the adoption of the first amendment and Jefferson's statement to the DBA. In most cases it is taken completely out of context as a means of attacking Christianity as a whole. Most of the Founders were deists, although some of them were Christian. The government itself was not founded on any religion specifically, but all of the original documents had some mention of "God" being as all of the Founders, regardless of their religion, believed in a Supreme Being or "God" that gave all men inalienable rights as human beings. Second, noone is forced to say "Under God" even when reciting the pledge. The ACLU made sure of that some time ago. So this is really a moot issue anyway.

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Thu 03/13/08 09:49 PM
Supreme Court since 1947 The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case which dealt with a state law that allowed the use of government funds for transportation to religious schools. While the ruling upheld the state law allowing taxpayer funding of transportation to religious schools as constitutional, Everson was also the first case to hold the Establishment Clause applicable to the state legislatures as well as Congress, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1962, the Supreme Court extended this analysis to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational..... THose of you confused by this the top paragraph shows how separation of church and state "definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence" in 1947 So from 1947 on the phrase was part of our legal system. The second paragraph shows how in 1962 the Supreme Court used that idea to say that prayer in school is not allowed even if it is non-denominational. so you can't just say any old God. that is a no no. you keep contradicting yourself. YOU were the one complaining that everyone was being forced to say the pledge. i was the one that said no you aren't and if you don't want to say it then don;t

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Thu 03/13/08 09:50 PM Edited by wiley on Thu 03/13/08 09:52 PM
On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in favor of Newdow. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God" [2]. that's really not relivant to what i'm saying. MANY people in the united states don't believe in that tag line. LMAO How is that not relevant? The Court ruled that schools cannot lead children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God."

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Thu 03/13/08 09:50 PM
Well some people are trying to say only the framers can talk about religion. that is no true. We make the laws of this country what thread are you reading....NO ONE said that

toastedoranges Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 11042	Thu 03/13/08 09:51 PM
Second, noone is forced to say "Under God" even when reciting the pledge. The ACLU made sure of that some time ago. So this is really a moot issue anyway. yes it is and whether or not separation of church and state is part of our founding documents. a seperation of the mass's personal ideas influincing many or even few, that sounds more american than including personal ideas in a mantra or on some coins. live and let live, be free and merry....etc

toastedoranges Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 11042	Thu 03/13/08 09:52 PM Edited by toastedoranges on Thu 03/13/08 09:52 PM
LMAO How is that not relevant? The Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot lead children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God." i'm tired, leave me be

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Thu 03/13/08 09:53 PM
Well some people are trying to say only the framers can talk about religion. that is no true. We make the laws of this country Seriously... are you on crack or something? Nobody said anything even remotely close to that.

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Thu 03/13/08 09:53 PM
LMAO How is that not relevant? The Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot lead children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God." i'm tired, leave me be but I loves ya toasted

toastedoranges Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 11042	Thu 03/13/08 09:55 PM
but I loves ya toasted well that's good. love despite a lack of rational thought

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Thu 03/13/08 09:58 PM
but I loves ya toasted well that's good. love despite a lack of rational thought lol i have rational thought...just can't get it out right now due to lack of sleep

toastedoranges Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 11042	Thu 03/13/08 09:59 PM
lol i have rational thought...just can't get it out right now due to lack of sleep i meant on my end

yellowrose10 Joined Tue 12/11/07 Posts: 52804	Thu 03/13/08 10:01 PM
lol i have rational thought...just can't get it out right now due to lack of sleep i meant on my end ohhh...yea...that's what i meant too

yzrabbit1 Joined Fri 09/28/07 Posts: 1531	Thu 03/13/08 10:03 PM
Well some people are trying to say only the framers can talk about religion. that is no true. We make the laws of this country what thread are you reading....NO ONE said that Wiley keeps going on and on about the framers and how THomas Jefferson never meant that. It dosn't matter because it is part of our laws now.