Separation of church and state

[gasgod]

The debate over the Ten Commandments will hopefully be settled by the Supreme court soon. It seems to me that this particular debate illustrates that those who would weaken the separation of church and state are intellectually dishonest.

It is ironic that very few churches bother to display the Ten Commandments on church property, where they could be seen daily by thousands of passers-by. Yet, there are those who would insist that they should be displayed on civic property, although comparatively few people would see them there.

The difference? If they are displayed on government property, the implication is that they are government approved. The very same people who would fight tenaciously to display them on government property are almost completely indifferent to their display on private property.


GG

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that this particular debate illustrates that those who would weaken the separation of church and state are intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you mind pointing out where said "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution? I'm having trouble finding it.

[ QUOTE ]
It is ironic that very few churches bother to display the Ten Commandments on church property, where they could be seen daily by thousands of passers-by.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you base this off of....?

[ QUOTE ]
If they are displayed on government property, the implication is that they are government approved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps simply acknowledged as one of the foundations of the country?

[ QUOTE ]
The very same people who would fight tenaciously to display them on government property are almost completely indifferent to their display on private property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, what are you basing this off of?

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that this particular debate illustrates that those who would weaken the separation of church and state are intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you mind pointing out where said "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution? I'm having trouble finding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't claim that the Constitution explicitly mandates "separation of church and state". However, it certainly doesn't encourage government participation in religion. You are aware of the First Amendment, aren't you? The very first sentence?

Do you feel that the state should become involved in religious affairs? If so, please elaborate. If not, then we have no disagreement.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is ironic that very few churches bother to display the Ten Commandments on church property, where they could be seen daily by thousands of passers-by.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you base this off of....?

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple everyday observation. Do you maintain that many churches display the Ten Commandments on their property? I haven't seen it.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they are displayed on government property, the implication is that they are government approved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps simply acknowledged as one of the foundations of the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite an example? No founding document that I am aware of says that the Ten Commandments is a foundation of anything. The first four Commandments obviously deal with matters quite outside the interests of government. In fact, only three of the Ten Commandments could arguably be cited as a basis for any law. I refer to the prohibitions against killing, lying, and stealing. (You might add adultery to get the total to four, but such laws are almost never enforced.)

Most of the commandments have nothing to do with government. Do you agree with this?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very same people who would fight tenaciously to display them on government property are almost completely indifferent to their display on private property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, what are you basing this off of?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never witnessed a fund drive to build a monument to the TC on private property. There is no groundswell of support for monuments on private property. There are very few such monuments. There is, however, a great deal of support from the religious right for monuments on government property. Can you explain this disparity?


GG

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't claim that the Constitution explicitly mandates "separation of church and state". However, it certainly doesn't encourage government participation in religion. You are aware of the First Amendment, aren't you? The very first sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't claim you did either. I was merely asking you the question of where your notion of a "seperation of church and state" comes from, because I can't seem to find it in the Constitution, so it must be somewhere.

No, it doesn't say anything about government being involved in religion. It simply states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Where in there does it say that government (which I hope you understand doesn't just consist of Congress) cannot be involved at all in religion?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you feel that the state should become involved in religious affairs? If so, please elaborate. If not, then we have no disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
I plead the infamous poker answer: it depends.

[ QUOTE ]
Simple everyday observation. Do you maintain that many churches display the Ten Commandments on their property? I haven't seen it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Found this with a simple google search: Church Erects Ten Commandments Display
I don't think this is the first church in the entire country to ever do such a thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you cite an example? No founding document that I am aware of says that the Ten Commandments is a foundation of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principals, of which the TC are an important part, and you need look no further than the first and second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which certainly had a role in founding the country by separating it from the mother country.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the commandments have nothing to do with government. Do you agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some don't. Some do. Should something be barred from government property if it isn't 100% relevant to the functions of government? What about religious artwork? Can that be displayed on public property? Say I paint a picture of Jesus at the Last Supper. Should that painting be banned from being displayed in school?

[ QUOTE ]
I have never witnessed a fund drive to build a monument to the TC on private property. There is no groundswell of support for monuments on private property. There are very few such monuments. There is, however, a great deal of support from the religious right for monuments on government property. Can you explain this disparity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you willing to admit that simply because you have not seen something, that something may very well exist? That's partly the reason I asked you what you based your claims on.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't claim that the Constitution explicitly mandates "separation of church and state". However, it certainly doesn't encourage government participation in religion. You are aware of the First Amendment, aren't you? The very first sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't claim you did either. I was merely asking you the question of where your notion of a "seperation of church and state" comes from, because I can't seem to find it in the Constitution, so it must be somewhere.

No, it doesn't say anything about government being involved in religion. It simply states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Where in there does it say that government (which I hope you understand doesn't just consist of Congress) cannot be involved at all in religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

The important question is simply this: Is it a good idea for government to become involved with religion?

One can answer this question pretty easily. The USA is arguably one of the least religious governments in the history of this planet. Personal freedom in the USA is arguably closer to the ideal than it is under any other government in the history of the planet. I maintain that this is not merely a coincidence.

Religious governments today -- notably the Islamic states -- are among the most repressive on the planet. When government and religion merge, there is almost always a loss in personal freedom.

If memory serves (and I'm not sure it does), the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a Supreme Court decision. This, in effect, has become the law of the land. Anything that breaks down that wall of separation moves us a bit closer to becoming the Christian States of America. This would be a very bad idea, and a serious blow to our freedom.


GG

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you mind pointing out where said "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution? I'm having trouble finding it.



[/ QUOTE ]
...
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps simply acknowledged as one of the foundations of the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind pointing out where in any of the founding documents the Ten Commandments are found? I'm having trouble finding it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The important question is simply this: Is it a good idea for government to become involved with religion?

[/ QUOTE ]
My take on it is this. Religion and government should not have active roles in the affairs of each other. But a totally hands-off rule is a little ridiculous. I advocate common sense.

[ QUOTE ]
The USA is arguably one of the least religious governments in the history of this planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree. I believe a great deal of our legislators are of belong to one religion or another. I'd also argue that those religions tend to help shape who that person is and the decisions they make. Should this be illegal in the perfect "seperation" state?

[ QUOTE ]
Personal freedom in the USA is arguably closer to the ideal than it is under any other government in the history of the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that this is partly because of the religiousness of the country, not inspite of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Religious governments today -- notably the Islamic states -- are among the most repressive on the planet. When government and religion merge, there is almost always a loss in personal freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the first sentence, but not necessarily the second. I think when one begins playing an active role in the other, that's when you have problems.

[ QUOTE ]
If memory serves (and I'm not sure it does), the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a Supreme Court decision. This, in effect, has become the law of the land. Anything that breaks down that wall of separation moves us a bit closer to becoming the Christian States of America. This would be a very bad idea, and a serious blow to our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I agree with the first sentence, but not necessarily the others. I think reasonable interactions can occur between the two, but one cannot start playing active roles in the other.

[goofball]

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or preventing the free excercise thereof"

That phrase has routinetly be interpreted by the supreme court to as a matter law mandate seperation of church and state.

Clearly the government saying, through their silence, that it's ok to have biblical passages on government property, endorses christianity over other religions and is the beginning of establishing it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly the government saying, through their silence, that it's ok to have biblical passages on government property, endorses christianity over other religions and is the beginning of establishing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
How exactly do bible passages, specifically the Ten Commandments, endorse Christianity, over Judiasm?
Where do you draw the line as far as what constitutes endorsement? Would religous art be considered an endorsement? What if multiple religious pieces are displayed? Which religion is being endorsed then?

I honestly have not met a Christian yet who thinks the church needs to play an active role in government. Though I'm sure there are some who exist, I don't believe they're anywhere near a majority. I think the people against this are fueled more by an anti-Christian agenda than they are pro-freedom agenda. That's been my experience, at least.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The important question is simply this: Is it a good idea for government to become involved with religion?

[/ QUOTE ]
My take on it is this. Religion and government should not have active roles in the affairs of each other. But a totally hands-off rule is a little ridiculous. I advocate common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that you are confusing levels of abstraction. I agree that it is just fine for a person involved in government to be religious, and just fine for a religious person to get involved with government. The harm comes when government itself becomes religious, or when religion itself gets involved in governing.

Do you see the distinction? It is quite OK for a Senator to say "I am a Christian.", but it's very dangerous to assert that "This is a Christian Senate."


GG