Church & State....Lift & separate.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I was talking with a fundie yesterday.
He claims, since the Constitution doesn’t provide for a separation of church and state, it shouldn’t be the accepted policy.
Can anyone tell me where this policy originated?
What's the legal precedent?

[Nothing But Net]

Umm, Bruce, I'm pretty sure this is the foundation:

Amendment I

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.

Are you OK, man?

[slang]

Is the exact phrase in the USC? No. Does that mean that every minute symbol or mention of God be removed today, from any local, state, or federal gov't function, proceeding or building.....

That's the debate.

Here again, I see things from a different perspective. If the big push is to completely remove Christianity from the gov't...or the society, fine. Let's wait a bit until their numbers decline per the current trend and then there shouldnt be much resistance.

On the other hand, if you feel for some reason that you must throw gas on the fire and get the base to dig in and possibly increase their numbers, the conflict will only grow.

If you see that as the "cost of doing business" , fine by me. There are many more in a wide variety of stations in life throughout the country though.

But then again.....oh fuck it, where's my beer?

[Happy Monkey]

The First Ammendment is where it's encoded in the Constitution. The phrase "separation between church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, in which he explains the meaning of the First Ammendment, as he sees it.

[wolf]

According to that somewhat dry, but interesting book I just finished reading, "The American Leadership Tradition," Jefferson was very pro-liberty, but very anti-church/christianity, which is where the "wall of separation" notion comes from.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sorry I'm late getting back here, had to bury a close friend.
Thanks for the link, HM.

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

Ok, if the citizens of a town of say 3,000 people, all either Christian or nothing(agnostic, atheist, blank), want to have a nativity scene on the town hall lawn, how is this a violation of any laws? If no one is complaining? If one person is complaining? If 49% complain?
If the Ten Commandments is on the police station wall is that promoting Judaism?

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sorry I'm late getting back here, had to bury a close friend.

That's rough, man. Sorry to hear about that.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the Ten Commandments is on the police station wall is that promoting Judaism?

The piece on the wall itself doesn't. It's just art. But the intention of the person (people) who put it there says why it's there. That's where things get tricky. You can ask someone why they put it there and they can say anything and intend something else. So you end up with others picking one of many possible reasons and insisting that's the real reason, whether it is or not, and getting whipped into a creamy froth over it.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by wolf

Jefferson was very pro-liberty, but very anti-church/christianity, which is where the "wall of separation" notion comes from.

I never got the feel that he was anti-christian, he even did his own cliff notes version of the new testament, sort of.

Something along the lines of a concept of mine, "I don't fear the godly man, I fear the man of god."

Originally Posted by wolf

According to that somewhat dry, but interesting book I just finished reading, "The American Leadership Tradition," Jefferson was very pro-liberty, but very anti-church/christianity, which is where the "wall of separation" notion comes from.

A quote of Jefferson from HM's link: "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 and esteem."

These do not sound like the words of someone on an anti-Christian crusade. Jefferson sounds very generous and ecumenical in his response, IMO. It was always my understanding that the seperation of church and state came from the high percentage of colonists who came to America to escape persecution for their religous beliefs in Europe.

On the question of a town of 3,000 Christians all desiring a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn: this would be the government respecting a religion - Christianity. Suppose that the very next year a Jew or a Pagan or a Buddhist happened to move into this community and there on the courthouse lawn was this obvious government endorsement of Chritianity. Wouldn't the Jew, Pagan, etc. feel that in order to get along with the town court, police, county commissioners he'd better make a secret of his religous belief or even convert whether he wanted to or not? And why wouldn't these 3,000 Christians be content with a nicely done nativity scene on the front lawn of their local church? Surely, this would be both more appropriate and more sacred?

And, Bruce: I am very sorry to hear about your friend. You have my deep sympathy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

Seems to me the government (Fed, State, Local), shouldn't promote or discourage any new or existing religion but they should accomodate the people they serve.
Government property = common property.
If the resident Christians want to put up a nativity, hey, knock yourself out.
The Jews say we want a menorah, OK, have at it.
Ralf worships sheep, uh, go do that in private.
If you truly want to separate government from religion, I'm in favor, but not by repressing public expression. If the Christian kid sees a menorah or a pagan celebration and questions what it's about, he all might learn a little more. He might be less fearful of others.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Seems to me the government (Fed, State, Local), shouldn't promote or discourage any new or existing religion but they should accomodate the people they serve.
Government property = common property.

OK, you'll probably accuse me of not getting the point again , but aren't matters of belief personal rather than public? Like when I go out in public I do not wear a t-shirt or wave a banner stating my decidely eclectic brand of personal belief (mainly Buddhist with lots of Navajo, Christian, and pagan beliefs thrown in just for interest). I don't expect government buildings to knock themselves out flaunting MY belief system when I myself would never dream of doing such a thing.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the resident Christians want to put up a nativity, hey, knock yourself out.
If you truly want to separate government from religion, I'm in favor, but not by repressing public expression. If the Christian kid sees a menorah or a pagan celebration and questions what it's about, he all might learn a little more. He might be less fearful of others.

The government is NOT repressing public expression of belief, only maintaining government buildings as a sort of neutral territory, so to speak. If you want to fill your front yard with 20 foot high neon lights that blink on and off proclaiming "Jesus Saves!" or "Blessed be the name of Allah!" or even "Go, Satan!" no one is going to stop you other than possibly the neighborhood improvement association.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the resident Christians want to put up a nativity, hey, knock yourself out.

Many churches do put nativities on their lawns. Why would they need city hall to do it, too? My guess is - to indicate that this town is Christian. Putting religious displays on public property, expecially in this age, is primarily a political statement - not a religious one - and dilutes any spiritual meaning of the content of the display. Separation of church and state is designed to protect the state from being too dogmatic, and the church from being too political. Each are diminished when they are combined.

[xoxoxoBruce]

HM, you obviously don't live in small town, usa.

Mari, you stinkin' liberal.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Government property = common property.
If the resident Christians want to put up a nativity, hey, knock yourself out.
The Jews say we want a menorah, OK, have at it.

How about a sign advertising Bob's Hardware or other local businesses?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

Jefferson was very pro-liberty, but very anti-church/christianity,

I think he was more anti-clergy, a view shared by many of his peers.