6th Circuit rejects "separation of church and state"

AFAMI News ^ | December 21, 2005 | unknown

[FredFlash]

Always Right wrote:

The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.

My two cents worth is:

Where does it demand a Union of Church and State?

Slice

[Retain Mike]

I stand by my comment, because the first ammendment provides a one way screen, and nothing in the Constitution prevents citizens from acting upon public institutions. When I am prevented from having a baccalaureate service at my high school, then according to the often sited Virginia Statue of Religios Liberty I and most others have suffered on account of our religious opinions and beliefs. This clause was never intended to be used as a way to banish our religous heritage from the public place.

[FredFlash]

Always Right wrote:

Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.

My two cents worth is:

James Madison’s Separation of Church and State is not about acknowledgements, accommodations or endorsements of religion. It is about no civil authority over our duties to the Creator.

Slice

[Just mythoughts]

How do you define the word “religion” in the establishment clause and why?

"Religion = The duty that we owe to the Creator"


IMO - religion is whatever one places their trust and attention in. I do not believe that one can fundamentally legislate religion. That said, the Constitution is premised upon the foundation that certain unalienable rights are endowed by the Creator that no man/government can take, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Yet even those rights are contained with specific limitations to government which was to be 'we' the people.

Government of any branch that takes authority to wall out the Creator in any sphere is taking power not inherent within the Constitution, and it is the Creator that preserves freedom for every citizen. There is nothing about the Creator endowing rights that requires any to believe in the Creator.

[Always Right]

Where does it demand a Union of Church and State?

Who said anything about a union? I just want to stop the hostility that is being mandated by activist judges. Christianity is being legally shut out of the public forum, which is exactly the opposite of what the first amendment mandates.

Slice

[FredFlash]

Religion is wholly exempt from Civil Society's cognizance.

[FredFlash]

Religion is wholly exempt from Civil Society's cognizance.

[FredFlash]

Religion is wholly exempt from Civil Society's cognizance.

[Always Right]

Religion is wholly exempt from Civil Society's cognizance.

Maybe one day you can make an intelligent comment. So far you seem like a babbling zealot.

[FredFlash]

If you are correct then please explain to me why the amendment does not provide that, “Congress shall make no law regulating the church, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?”

[FredFlash]

Those are the words of the Father of the Constitution.

[FredFlash]

"Let us leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State." Source is: Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York on the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives in 1832 objecting to the idea of Congress asking President Andrew Jackson to issue a Religious Proclamation recommending prayer and fasting.


The House took the advice and refused to ask the President to recommend prayer and fasting. Of course, Jackson had previously made it publicly known that any member of Congress that brought him such a foolish request would get his sorry butt kicked back to the Temple of Satan where the idea sprang from.

[FredFlash]

What are some of these simple facts that you claim are plain as day to the average intelligent person but are not so plain to lawyers?

[elbucko]

What are some of these simple facts that you claim are plain as day to the average intelligent person but are not so plain to lawyers?

I beg your pardon, but that quote is from another post on this thread. It is not original to me. Ask the first person on the thread who posted it what simple facts they claim that worry you so.

[FredFlash]

You wrote:
If you want to debate the subject, please find something germane to it. The constitution institutes a one-way restriction on governmental/church interaction. Specifically, the government is not allowed to "establish" a state sponsored church, nor can the government prohibit the people's free exercise of religion. Care to try again?

I write:
Ok my friend - Elaborate for me on the theory of the “one-way restriction on governmental/church interaction.” I don’t like to dismiss an idea before I actually understand it. Also, provide me with one or a few of what you believe are the best historical and moral arguments that support it. Just brief me on the arguments. I don’t need all the details unless you have developed some revolutionary new ideas.

Are the religion clauses ambiguous? By this I mean - By examining only the text and nothing else - Is there more than one reasonable interpretation?

Does your interpretation fit the textual parameters of the amendment? What does the word “thereof” as used in the free exercise clause mean? What does the word “religion” in the establishment clause mean?

Do you acknowledge that God and God alone owns the just authority to impose on any man obligations that pertain to the duties that man owes to the Creator?

[FredFlash]

A thousand pardons and I leave you with the following:

LET US LEAVE PRAYER TO BE PROMPTED BY THE DEVOTION OF THE HEART, AND NOT THE BIDDING OF THE STATE.*

* Source of Information: Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York on the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives in 1832 objecting to the proposal that Congress ask President Andrew Jackson to issue a Religious Proclamation recommending prayer and fasting because of the Asiatic Scourge.

The House chose to follow Verplanck's wise advice and refused to ask the President to recommend prayer and fasting. Jackson had previously made it publicly known that any member of Congress that brought him such a foolish request would get his sorry butt kicked back to the Temple of Satan where the idea must have originated. Andy Jackson believed in the Total Separation of Religion and Government and for staying true to the pure, sacred, just and truly Christian principle of no civil authority over out duties to God, even in the face of the Scourge, he is hereby nominated to the American Religious Liberty Hall of Fame.