jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (20 posts)

The Separation Of Church & State - The Law & The Bible

  1. Ben Bush profile image60
    Ben Bushposted 8 years ago

    There are many who say that, not only is the separation of Church & State not a truly legal concept, but it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States.

    So, what is the separation of Church & State as reflected in law? As reflected in the Bible?

    Do you know or can you guess? Why is it Important?

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … _and_state

      It certainly is implied in the first amendment and was put there so that there wouldn't be persecution for not following the teachings of a state religion which was why people came to America to begin with.

      What's more disturbing to me is your statement that "some say...it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States"

      Just who are these people that claim to know the intent of God????

    2. Misha profile image77
      Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I am not arrogant enough to pretend to know God's intentions smile

      1. Ben Bush profile image60
        Ben Bushposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately some do, even in the face of evidence otherwise.

  2. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    Who says that the separation of church and state is not a truly legal concept ?

    Could you add some links to their websites?

    By the way - I looked up the soldier who went MIA and claimed diplomatic immunity in a Catholic church and could find nothing. Would you add some links to that also?

    And what exactly did god have to do with writing the US constitution?

    1. Ben Bush profile image60
      Ben Bushposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Here are a few links:

      Pro Separation of Church & State

      http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues

      http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/Re … tyMain.cfm

      http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/

      http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2496


      Anti-Separation of Church & State

      http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT00G4

      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesAr … asp?id=123

      http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=775

      Mark, I'll have to look up the AWOL MP in my archives. It may be a few days.

      According to the Founding Fathers, God was all over the place in its formation. Even Ben Franklin reminded the convention of the fact the God surely views the rise of an "Empire." He then called for prayer, even though they didn't pray at that time. Surely you're not going to argue with ole Ben?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I would happily argue with ole Ben if he was telling me he knew what god wanted - and from my understanding of god - he couldn't care less one way or another about the rise and fall of yet another empire - whether they claimed to know his wishes and enforce those wishes by use of the police and military or not smile

        All those links don't really address the "legal " aspect of separation. They certainly address the wishes of certain groups of people - who, coincidentally, also know what god wants and feel it should be written into state law - and use the police and other state powers to enforce those laws. Because they are right. lol

        SJ - thank you for those links.

        One really has to use one's common sense here. The founding fathers obviously knew what they were doing.

        Keeping power for themselves. And ensuring that no religious group was allowed to take power. Smart move. Sarah Palin types notwithstanding.

        Clever people smile

        1. Ben Bush profile image60
          Ben Bushposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Mark,

          Here's the small article from the Dallas Morning News. It doesn't come up in their archives search (plus, you have to pay for access to it), but this is the article as I copied/ typed it a few days after I read it.


                                        Church protects soldier who fled Fort Hood

               The Dallas Morning News of  March 30, 2003 contained this brief on page 24A.
               Fort Hood soldier Ralph Padula tried for months to obtain conscientious objector status. But as his military police unit shipped out to Iraq, and officers made it clear that he too would be deployed, he fled on Thursday and sought sanctuary at a Roman Catholic church in Round Rock, north of Austin. His supporters at St. John Vianney Church were vowing to protect the soldier until the Army promises to treat him fairly, the Rev. Samuel Hose said. The priest is seeking an independent psychiatric evaluation of the soldier.





          Can one use common sense when dealing with the thoughts and actions of men who were regularly referring to God being involved in their politics?smile



          Technically you're right. The core issue of "separation of Church and State, as written into the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, is hardly ever at stake in the many court cases which supposedly deal with this issue. All is at stake is the public display or articulation of religious thoughts and ideas. And these aren't "rights" which are at stake. By law, they are mere priviliges, which are granted and regulated by the Government. All these arguments do is make money for the Lawyers and keep certain segments of the public agitated.

          1. Make  Money profile image73
            Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            I believe Ralph Padula has a right to be a conscientious objector on the grounds that it is against his religion.  I can't find it right now but in the last book of the Bible it says we are not to take part in the last war or Apocalypse. http://www.drbo.org/book/73.htm

            Mike

            1. Ben Bush profile image60
              Ben Bushposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              I believe John The Baptist addressed this issue when asked a question by soldiers in Luke 3:14. Adhering to the first one was impossible and still remain a soldier.

              1. Make  Money profile image73
                Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah exactly, Apocalypse or not.

  3. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    Mark Alexander
    From Patriot Post Vol. 03 No. 33; Published 15 August 2003

    There is serious threat facing our nation, the resolution of which will have far-reaching implications for the survival of our republic.

    For the last decade, The Federalist has followed the judicial tenure of Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who was sued by the ACLU in 1995 -- to no avail -- because he displayed the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opened his court with prayer. Two years ago, when this outstanding Patriot was sworn in as Alabama's Chief Justice, he declared, "God's law will be publicly acknowledged in our court. [It is my duty] not only to maintain the honor and integrity of the court system and the judicial branch, but to restore and preserve the moral foundation of our law."

    Chief Justice Moore not only keeps the Decalogue in his courtroom, but in 2001 he installed a monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Justice Building featuring a relief of the Ten Commandments, engraved with quotes from our Founders. At the dedication of that monument, Justice Moore declared, "To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs. From our earliest history in 1776 when we were declared to be the United States of America, our forefathers recognized the sovereignty of God."

    That, of course, prompted a federal lawsuit by the ACLU claiming violation of the First Amendment's so-called "separation clause" (based on the erroneous assertion that Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists proclaimed that the Constitution ensured all manner of "separation of church and state").

    Despite the fact this case has received only marginal media attention, we believe it is the most important test of federalism in decades, not only of federalism as detailed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but also of the First Amendment's restriction that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which has been stretched by Leftjudicial activists beyond recognition. This case should be of utmost interest to any American who is a Christian and/or a constitutional constructionist.

    Defending the protection of the state from federal jurisdiction in this case, Justice Moore testified, "The basic issue is whether we will still be able to acknowledge God under the First Amendment, or whether we will not be able to acknowledge God." But U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson would have none of that and ordered the monument removed.

    Justice Moore took his case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, protesting that "...Federal district courts have no jurisdiction or authority to prohibit the acknowledgment of God that is specifically recognized in the Constitution of Alabama," but Judge Ed Carnes upheld Thompson's ruling. Carnes wrote: "Any notion of high government officials' being above the law did not save [states' rights proponents] from having to obey federal court orders, and it will not save [Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore] from having to comply with the court order in this case. ... If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail."

    Apparently, Judge Carnes relied on the same adulterated version of our Constitution used by Thompson. Our copy still says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which applies to, well, Congress, not Chief Justice Moore, who was elected to state office by the people of the state of Alabama. The only parties in this case involved in "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion are the ACLU and their Leftjudiciary minions.

    Chief Justice Moore has appealed the 11th Circuit Court ruling to the Supreme Court, declaring: "We must defend our rights and preserve our Constitution. ... To prohibit the acknowledgment of God upon Whom our justice system is established is to undermine our entire judicial system. We will defend this display in the judicial building vigorously. It is an acknowledgment of a sovereign, holy God Whose laws superintend those of man. We will not retreat from that position, because it is true."

    Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has noted previously, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."

    Ironically, in the Supreme Court, the Ten Commandments are etched in a marble relief above the Justices' bench, for indeed they are the moral foundation of American law. Thompson, meanwhile, renewed his demand that Chief Justice Moore remove the monument by August 20 and threatened "substantial fines against Chief Justice Moore in his official capacity, and thus against the state of Alabama itself, until the monument is removed."

    Stepping into the fight in late July, Congress voted 260-161 for an amendment to defund any effort by U.S. Marshals to remove the monument. "None of the funds appropriated in this [bill] may be used to enforce the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit," said Rep. John Hostettler.

    The foundational question all constitutional constructionists should be asking: On what legitimate constitutional grounds can a federal judge lodge demands, punishments and fines against chief judicial officers in the several states -- or does the federal bench now assume that the states are nothing more than administrative agencies of the central government -- rather than federally separated governments subject to their own constitutional sovereignty?

    To assess the importance of this case, consider this evaluation from 11th Circuit Judge Carnes in his ruling against Chief Justice Moore: "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years."

    We encourage every American Patriot, who believes as our Founders did that our Constitution should not be subject to the vagaries of an activist Leftjudiciary, to sign an open letter in support of Chief Justice Roy Moore's defense of religious liberty and states' rights.

    Link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter


    this is one perspective...more to come

  4. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    Library of congress official copy of Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to Danbury church where the phrase "separation of church and state"  comes from

    http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebreco … 4&v3=1

  5. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago
  6. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago
  7. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    there have been several "interpretations" of this phrase by law and historical professors that I have read in the past. I am looking for them... they were very unique in their interpretations

  8. Inspirepub profile image86
    Inspirepubposted 8 years ago

    Haven't we done the whole Founding Fathers thing before?

    I'm getting a Groundhog Day sensation ...

    Jenny

  9. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    I think the whole separation of church and state thing is a very good subject to continue. It brings up the perspectives of where people are at in their thinking on God and government and can make clear where people are abusing their power.

    The average liberal American wants to keep religion out of government and the average conservative wants to keep government out of their religion.Why in heavens name does there have to be an argument about who is right and who is wrong? Can't we all try to say the same thing...that there is a middle ground where we should be looking for common understanding?

    Nobody wants a religious state government...but I see that many liberals want conservatives to not think the way they do and try to take away the conservatives religious freedoms and speech thereof. Christians have a certain belief system about particular things, and don't make any bones about what they think of certain "moral/value" issues, but I haven't seen them trying to take away  liberals'  freedoms and speech.

    No conservative tried to take away a gay's right to free speech, except where gays  have tried to impose their beliefs through school systems without consent (prayer was in schools from the founding of the country, accepted as a way of life)...why can't both "sides" be heard? But liberals have certainly tried and accomplished taking prayer out of schools and attempting to do the same with the Pledge of Allegiance and a state or cities' right to have prayer in local meetings and crosses in cemetaries.  Who is trying to control whose consciousness?

    Some liberals are doing the same thing to conservatives that they are accusing conservatives of doing to them. How is not wanting to allow the concept of God any different than wanting to allow the concept of God? How is a liberal  accusing conservatives of being cold and indifferent to certain populations and their ideals any different than a liberal being indifferent to certain religious populations' ideals?

    From my 50 years of life and 20 years of spiritual study, it seems to me that the "sides" have more in common than they do in differences. The diversities aren't the problem, thinking that someone is right and someone is wrong is the problem. We need to be going after the core of inhumanity within our selves and reaching out to others to help overcome those that truly abuse us in common...the power elite in monopolies of all kinds, be it in governments, banks, corporations, or churches/religions that want to use their powers to control people.

    Geez, people need to wake up and see who really is in control here, cause it isn't God within themselves or the natural order of the universe, it's the freedoms of the soul being manipulated through the everyday systems we have allowed to expand unchecked that controls our lives.

    1. Ben Bush profile image60
      Ben Bushposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      The bible says in Proverbs that, "The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is a slave to the lender."

      The United States is a nation of slaves. Not only that, our representatives have made slaves out of us by going bankrupt themselves, thus making the people responsible for the debt. This is the issue where most of the controls stems from, monetary entanglements. It is only natural that loss of freedoms follow the flow of debt.

  10. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "and officers made it clear that he too would be deployed, he fled on Thursday and sought sanctuary at a Roman Catholic church in Round Rock, north of Austin. His supporters at St. John Vianney Church were vowing to protect the soldier until the Army promises to treat him fairly, the Rev. Samuel Hose said. The priest is seeking an independent psychiatric evaluation of the soldier." He must be crazy.

 
working