Separation of church and state.. the myth

from PolMach Forums
In seeing discussion in Myrrander's thread on (link follows immediately, click on text to the right and/or below) Intelligent Design? Where's the Proof?, I had to head off again and dig up info on the separation of Church of State and the myths surrounding same.

Here's a few references to chew on for discussion about whether the separation of Church and State was ever supposed to exist or not.

link: The Myth of the Separation of Church and State

link: The Separation of Church and State article by David Barton

link: warning, this one is from a blatantly religious site (and is more than a bit reflective on Michael Newdow and his lawsuits trying to keep God out of schools).

link: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ISSUES

link: First Ammendment facts


Read any, some, or none, and then feel free to discuss which is right and/or which is wrong and why? Is there supposed to be a "separation of church and state" as we have today, or has the constitution and or the bill of rights been mis-understood and mis-applied in order to squelch religious content in this country.
politics
1,867 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
If we have a freedom of religion in this country, how can that be reconsiled if the law of the land is based entirely on Christianity. IMO teach religion in the schools if you are going to talk about all the major religions.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I love it when people say "it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion." The statement "freedom of religion" must include people who want nothing to with religion whatsoever -- otherwise you'd have to have laws mandating that everyone has to go to a mosque, church, synagogue, whatever. The Federalist papers, the writings of Jefferson, Washington, and others make it pretty clear that the first ammendment was meant to be a separation between the state and the church so that the state could not dictate what religion was legal and the church could not dictate what laws the state passed.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #2 By: Myrrander - 11/15/2004 3:58:53 PM
I love it when people say "it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion." The statement "freedom of religion" must include people who want nothing to with religion whatsoever -- otherwise you'd have to have laws mandating that everyone has to go to a mosque, church, synagogue, whatever. The Federalist papers, the writings of Jefferson, Washington, and others make it pretty clear that the first ammendment was meant to be a separation between the state and the church so that the state could not dictate what religion was legal and the church could not dictate what laws the state passed.


Myrr - if you actually read through some of the links above, you'd see that the writings of these people you mention don't necessarily mean what you are describing. But again, this is all subject to many people's interpretation of things and we don't have the framers of the constitution and bill of rights around to really give their true feelings.

Instead, we have only their writings -- and not just select few -- to look back upon and to reflect back on the meanings of their writings in the most important documents: the constitution and the bill of rights.

There are clearly cases where the framers were impeccably careful about their words, about inserting judicious pauses into sentences that make the statements have different meanings and nuances than if the pauses were or weren't there. Some people read things one way, while others gloss over and/or skip words that may change the meanings of things completely.

For the record, from my side, it's freedom of and freedom from religion, but freedom from religion does not mean that your freedom from religion should impede my freedom of religion. If you wish to be an agnostic or an atheist or a satanist, that's your business. You should not, however, be able to use your choice of worship (or lack thereof) to preclude me from being able to display symbols of or from my religion and/or beliefs on public property.

People tend to make a leap that displaying religious symbols in public places indicates that the government is sanctioning or condoning one religion over another. That's a myth and falsehood that was allowed to stand, even when there hasn't been proof of any such thing.

Example: If I so happen to display an item from the NFL on my wall that shows superbowl winners prominently displayed and even more prominently displays say the Dallas Cowboys or the Pittsburgh Steelers, am I indicating that I support one or the other or both of those teams? Does simply having the symbol from one of them on display say I have deemed them the one and only team that may be supported?

This is one of the biggest wedge issues in our nation today (Church and State separation), and it will continue as a wedge issue until we realize that tolerance is a two way street. You can't make someone be tolerant by keeping their religion out of public spaces much as you can't make someone be tolerant by shoving that same religion down the throats of people who happen to visit public spaces.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
On your wall is one thing. If you own the thing, you can do whatever you want. When it comes to public property, it belongs to everyone so only civic diplays should be allowed. But I don't really get up in arms about manger scenes or "under god" in the pledge. Doesn't really make a difference to me. Furthermore, I'm an atheist teacher, but I use religious writings in some of my literature class because to ignore them is to ignore a large portion of historical literature. So I'm not a rabid atheist out to destroy all mention of God from the public discourse. It does, however, irk me when I'm called "un-American" or unworthy to teach because I happen to think the idea of God makes about as much sense as sticking my tongue in a mouse trap. I am willing to acknowledge that God is a big part of a person's personal life -- but it needs to stay there. After all, Christ told Christians in the book of St. Matthew: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." So when you shove your Christianity down the public throat -- enjoy the feeling you get, because Christ himself said that's the only reward you'll get for it.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Myrr - I don't ask to shove Christianity down anyone's throat, but I do ask and/or expect that people like Michael Newdow will not be able to tell me and the rest of the country that we can't utter "under god" as part of the Pledge, or can't have even portions of the 10 commandments on the wall in a school or in a court house. Or that schools like VMI can't have prayer before meals.

There's tolerance, and then there's shove it all away and make it not exist because it must be trying to convert me.

It amazes me that I'm told that I should be tolerant of gay rights and shouldn't be offended if I should happen to see a same sex couple on the TV. They're just people, if they are involved in a PDA (public display of affection) it's not supposed to offend me, even though I might look at it and expect it's trying to make me respect or tolerate something I don't wish to. On the other hand, if I ask people to ignore a 10 commandments plaque or display if it might offend them, the price is too high, and I'm being intolerant of the complainer's feelings.