Constitution Mandates a Wall Between Church And State - Right?
Another Charlie Kirk topic, but again, without the politics (and semantics).
It seems safe to say that a general understanding of the phrase "separation of church and state" is that the Constitution says the government should not be involved (or mixed) with any religion.
It seems equally safe to say that the Constitution does not say that; it only says the government can't promote or restrict any religion.
Meaning, the Left and the Right are arguing 'Yeah, buts ...' relative to what 'man' (aka the Courts), says about that separation. In short, not arguing about the same thing. In this case, the Right has factual support and the Left has fluid interpretive support ('yeah, buts' change with the times).
As Kirk asked a Hindu questioner: "Should government be divorced from morality? Kirk says no, the Hindu says no, and I say, no. A government must act morally.
Does the intent of the 'general understanding' expect the same wall of separation between morality and government?
Kirk offers a solid foundation for his reasoning on this. The Hindu student also agreed with it. So, where do/should the morals of government come from?
Charlie Kirk Exposes the Myth of Separation of Church and StateMorality is not the sole possession of the Judeo-Christian standard.
So, yes the government has to act morally.
Not promoting or restricting religion for the Government has to mean by its very definition: NO Establishment
As I said, judeo-Christianity does not have the market cornered in regard to morality. Morality can come from any number of sources.
There can be no predominant religion forced from government authority or those acting in its stead promoting the concept of establishment. I see the guardrails as to students behavior as prescribed within rules and regulations similar to our Constitution. Only the law can be prescribed to all people living in this society, not any one particular religion. As a result, I don’t buy his interpretation on this and say that Charlie is all wet.Note: Edit added
Yep, Christianity doesn't own morality. Different religions, different moralities. The differences don't negate your point, or Charlie's. Stay on track, I'm arguing that he is saying our design was influenced and founded oYep, Christianity doesn't own morality. Different religions, different moralities. The differences don't make your point, or negate Charlie's. Stay on track, I'm arguing that he is saying our design was influenced and founded on Christian principles, not that it is the only religion to have them. His only arrogance is to think his religion is the right one. But all religious believers think that, right?
Yep, only the law can prescribe. Who is the law? It's us through our representatives. On moral decisions, what is the predominant influence for each of us individually? It's probably going to be the morality of our faith, or the morality of our nurturing (in absence of religious faith). Either way, the morality comes from somewhere. And we'll predominantly vote for representatives that share our morals. Sound right?
So where would the morality that guided the Founders and delegates come from? The obvious answer is one you deny — from the culture of the time.
You're dancing to avoid agreement with a Rightie. No part of the discussion has been about forcing anything on anyone. Kirk has not promoted 'officializing' Christianity (in the context of this discussion). No part of the OP, or responses have promoted making Christianity an official or government-endorsed religion.
The whole thing is about what was before, before it's an argument about what should be. The contention is that our nation was founded on the influence of Christian principles, not whether our nation should be an official Christian nation.
Disagreeing with 'Christianizing' America is an extrapolation of the discussion, not the point of it.
GAn Christian principles, not that it is the only religion to have them. His only arrogance is to think his religion is the right one. All religious believers think the same thing, right?
Yep, only the law can prescribe. Who is the law? It's us through our representatives. On moral decisions, what is the predominant influence for each of us individually? It's probably going to be the morality of our faith, or the morality of their nurturing (in absence of religious faith). Either way, the morality comes from somewhere. Sound right?
So where would the morality that guided the Founders and delegates come from? The obvious answer is one you deny, from the culture of the time.
You're dancing to avoid agreement with a Rightie. No part of the discussion has been about forcing anything“His only arrogance is to think his religion is the right one. All religious believers think the same thing, right?”
That is the problem isn’t it?
Morality comes from a variety of sources, with Judeo=christianity being just one of many.
Yes, what morality these men actually possessed they claimed was Judeo-Christian based. I am just not interested in Christian nationalism as an excuse based on those ideas. So, there are no bread crumbs to follow here.
I simply say what they professed and what they practiced could well be two different things.
I don’t have to work hard to disagree with a Righty, as far as I am concerned, their logic is always flawed.Flawed? Maybe, but you haven't proven it here. You haven't addressed most of the claims, and the one you did — about the Founders' influence — you agreed with.
'Yeah, the Founders were influenced by their Christian religion, but ... they were probably two-faced about it.'
I say there are only two primary sources for morals: faith (religious/spiritual/atheist) and nurturing (formative life experiences). What others are dominant enough to influence the morals of a mass population?
Christian nationalism wasn't part of the discussion, or Kirk's video, until you introduced it as an extrapolation not relative to the topic.
You might have to work a little harder to prove this Rightie's logic is flawed. You've barely addressed one point of it, much less prove it wrong. You're still dancing.
GA ;-)So, what do you want me to acknowledge?
Yes, the founding fathers probably based much of their principles for government on Judeo-Christianity the only basis available to them at the time.
Yeah, and so what?The 'so what' is that we have a common understanding of a starting point, not just a partisan or ideological argument to flail at.
Kirk's first step was tying Christian principles to our formation. The next question is whether that was a good or bad thing.
Then, he tied the influences on our choice of legal system to British common law and the Christianity of its influencers: Blackstone, Locke, et al. Past recollections make that seem logical and right to me. That's my take from non-religious discussion encounters.
Hopefully that's reasonable and not biased spin. I see that as a good thing.
I better stop here. The rest of Kirk's steps in this discussion illustrate the same thing: valid support and linkage for the claims. No need to get you in trouble with your crew. You already agreed Christian principles were influential in our government's creation, and if you're not careful, you'll end up agreeing with this common law point being a fair one, and ... two agreements with a Rightie might get you some side glances, but three could get you demoted (or impeached). ;-)
GAYes, we do have a common understanding of a starting point. Nothing to gloat about because there is nothing beyond that point. So, the sun rises in the east and sets in the West, where do we go from here?
I support the basis behind English Common Law as buttressed by John Locke and others of the 17th Century.
Yes, ok, it worked out well as the least troublesome alternative among all possible choices. But, it is not exactly ideal as it has the flaws and frailty of its drafters.
There is nothing righty in acknowledging history and these men brought Christians values (at least the ones they wanted, a smorgasbord perhaps)to their ideas around government, so what else am I to concede to the “mighty righty”? As I said, beyond that I have nothing to offer the right except my derision.Well, I'm gloating about it, but not from your perspective (ok, maybe a little bit, getting you to admit a reality you don't like is like pulling teeth).
Agreeing with something, even if you didn't before, isn't a concession if the change is your decision; it's progress.
As for what else, hells bells, with a few more steps we might find enough common understanding to get in sight of a biggie: Charlie's claim that Christianity and Christian principles were 'the lifeblood of our nation's development and its success in becoming a great nation.'
But you're not ready for that yet. Maybe a warm-up, something like: Why the message of the Ten Commandments should be in every classroom. Kirk has a clip on that too.
GAI cannot deny which is fact that these founding intellectuals claimed adherence to Christian principles as they understood them.
“As for what else, hells bells, with a few more steps we might find enough common understanding to get in sight of a biggie: Charlie's claim that Christianity and Christian principles were 'the lifeblood of our nation's development and its success in becoming a great nation.'”
Don’t hold your breath, that acknowledgment will remain “a bridge too far’ for the foreseeable future. That was Charlie’s outlook and I can’t subscribe to it.
Don’t tell me that you are more “righty” than I once believed? YOU subscribe to the idea of the Ten Commandments plastered in every classroom? You had just as well abandon the purple and embrace the red.
Any chance of my accepting such a thing is the equivalent of a leap across the Grand Canyon, no way…..It seems to me that what Charlie, and most other "Christians" today, forget (or ignore in order to make the claim that we are a Christian Nation, or at least had Christian roots) is that what we call Christianity today is not what was called Christianity 300 years ago.
Today's Christianity, with it's ever changing God, it's acceptance of gay marriage and women priests, it's church-led entertainment functions, it's acceptance that other religions might, just maybe, get people to heaven, would be grounds for burning to the Puritans that were the primary driving force in American religion in the 17 and 18 centuries. Even that old, old (from long before Christianity) moral basis, the Golden Rule, would not be recognized in any but words by the believers of long ago.
So yes, Christianity had a big part of developing our culture, even though it has changed into something unrecognizable. So did self reliance, duty and a work ethic. All have changed, but all had at least much influence as the religions of hundreds of years ago.So true! ... and yeah, I had to adlib that in... had to...
I of course, have a far more humane solution, bring back the Mental Institutions.Thank you, no. I once worked remodeling a "children's home" once. What was a "home" for mentally ill and retarded children became a facility for the deaf.
The old beds and other equipment were still there, upstairs in bunk rooms. It still gives me nightmares to think back to what we saw there.
Let's not bring back the Mental Institutions of the past.And the alternative is the mentally ill walking the streets doing harm to others...spreading their illness like a cancer...
How many women suffer an end like the poor girl who escaped Ukraine, only to be brutally murdered on train by a "Mentally Ill" person who had been arrested and released more than a dozen times... One a day in America? A dozen? How many stories like that get buried without ever seeing the light of day...
You can find hundreds of such assaults on X being exposed... If you look.
Happens every day, because we refuse to remove those who are a threat to all others from the streets...
Police are forced to deal with it every day.
Maybe the Chinese... The CCP... Has it right.
They don't let the Mentally Ill or the criminals walk the streets to prey on the innocent.
That said ... There is a distinct difference between handicapped children and violent or deranged adults. I know how poorly we do with children, the ones incapable of speaking for themselves and without advocates suffer tragedy ...inhumane and unmentionable ...one is not the other...
Wilderness, it has always been just a label and as a label, for what content?
Christianity and its definition has been changed so often over time, and its various interpretations today are without number. Who would want to go back over 300 years ago to when heretics were burned at the stake?
Defining one’s self as a Christian often times serves to cover a multitude of sins.
Christianity is more than just a slogan, it is to reflect an attitude and mode of behavior that I have not seen as a part of America, past or present. But, we have always had the “label”.
With a little clarification, I think I can get you to that "bridge too far." I'm not saying I could get you to cross it, but I bet I could at least get you to consider it.
As a starting clarification, I do not want the Christian 10 Commandments forced into every classroom. But I do think the points of morality of the Commandments should be in the classroom, and they should be promoted.
Another is that Kirk's position on this wasn't as absolute as portrayed by his adversaries. Yes, he would like the promotion of morals to be of his 10 Commandments, but the message didn't have to be promoted as Christian if a more 'commonly accepted' method can be found. In short, it's the moral message he wants, a 'return' to a foundationally moral family and society.
If that clarification helps, then maybe Kirk's idea can be considered more neutrally: Should the value of a common set of morals — a concept accepted to have been a good and important thing in our nation's founding, be promoted in the classrooms of its future citizens?
That bridge won't be too far if the connotations of personality or politics aren't used to define the concept.
Here's a little salve for those burns:
Charlie Kirk Gets outsmarted by a kid.
*You'll love it. Be sure to look at the comments under the video.
GAWould you consider the Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would they do unto you", in all it's forms and language, the root of nearly all moral codes?
Because that rule is the closest thing we have to a "universal" moral. It is found in very nearly every culture, every language and every religion.
It also far predates Christianity, making it questionable to say that it is Christianity that gave us our moral codes and our culture. One could as easily say it was Islam, or Buddhism or any of dozens of philosophies as they all contain that near perfect Golden Rule.Yes, but no. Your point of origin is right. It sparked recollections of other Christian tenets that can also be traced to earlier sources.
The 'No' is that the discussion is framed around us, America, from the first colonies to an established nation. The other religions you mention may have been present, but nothing in our history shows any to be more predominantly influential than Christianity. In that context, I don't think attributing it to Christianity is questionable or arbitrary.
GA
GA, I can already see the bridge from here.
On Posting the 10 Commandments, Instead of this points of morality stuff, just post rules saying:
1. No fighting
2. Do not take your classmates property without permission
Etc.
We do not have to raise this to level of Moses parting the Red Sea. We can allow the moral implications of these secular rules to be discussed within a family setting at home or at a place of worship whatever and wherever that may be.
yes, Charlie got caught with his britches down, his positions place him against principles of contraception in addition to abortion. We all know that after Republicans restrain women from obtaining abortions, contraceptives are next.Nope, the point isn't about "rules," and it isn't about adult minds. It's about motivating and instilling a foundation of core moral values for the young.
Now wait a minute, don't jump, consider that just as a concept, without any details of who or what or how, no definition of the values (beyond core and commonly accepted), and no specific source. Surely you can agree that a society should want its future citizens to hold its common core moral values (emphasis on core, not all)?
Is that a safe assumption? Is it a fair description of the concept?
GAThat is the danger, proselytizing young minds.
Do your motivating and instilling a foundation of core moral values at home, because only the secular can truly be neutral in this regard in avoiding religious proselytizing. My values may not sync with your values, making secular rules is appropriate for children and adults in my opinion. Why complicate things?
The problem and danger is going beyond common held values as defined by secular law into a realm of approaching the extremes of an Islamic state. The Government surreptitiously directing all to acknowledge the hegemony of Judeo-Christian values preferring its religion. Are these religionists willing to accept Muslim or Shinto placards in school speaking of much of the same positive moral values? No, certainly not. When we are not all Judeo-Christians. Behavior rules are just simpler, it worked for me in my time and I don’t know why we have to introduce Moses into all of this? I don’t need an Elmer Gantry in everybody’s classroom trying to guide everyone’s thinking.Come on Cred. Stop jumping to where you want to end up. Stop criticising details that aren't yet part of the conversation; they can be argued later.
What about the concept, as described? Is that something you don't think a society should be concerned with? It's been accepted that the influence of core values were beneficial to our successful Founding, it shouldn't be hard to find out what part of that acceptance no longer holds with you.
If it's the details of the concept's parts: content (morals), the source, or the implementation (classroom), you're objecting to something that's not there—yet.
Your response was all about presumed details; the question only asked about the concept: should a society be concerned with the core morality of its future citizens?
There's no need to discuss the details if the concept has no value.
Whaddayathink? Would you prefer a society with a 'helter-skelter' smorgasbord of core ethics? A society that doesn't hold "Thou shalt not kill" (in whatever textual construction you want) as a common societal belief? ;-)
GADo you ever listen to what I am saying?
“What about the concept, as described? Is that something you don't think a society should be concerned with? It's been accepted that the influence of core values were beneficial to our successful Founding, it shouldn't be hard to find out what part of that acceptance no longer holds with you”
Answer: yes a society should be concerned about teaching core values to its younger citizens. YOU established that the influence of core values were beneficial to our successful founding, I don’t. It is not a matter of “no longer holds with me, but never really has.
Next question?A 'next question' wouldn't be any different. I had to backtrack to see if it was only me that agreed. Maybe. You didn't specifically say you agreed that the influence of Christian principles was good for our formation.
You agreed that the predominant morality of the times was Christian-influenced, as was that of the pertinent figures involved. You even said it worked out well.
But you were right, I was the one who made the leap to think that meant you thought that was a good thing.
The only way it needn't be seen as beneficial is if you think it wasn't needed to get the nation started, or its rules written. Meaning the first colonists, through to the last revolutionary war soldier, would have survived and succeeded without the influence of their faith. Or that our laws would be equally just when modeled after some system other than common law (no Christian influence).
I think historical accounts show that to be silly. History is full of accounts, from trivial to event-making, of dire straits where faith was the only thing that kept them going. The nation-forming effort wouldn't have succeeded with desperate 'last efforts' by folks calling on their faith.
Nope, I don't think those folks would have made it without their faith. I think the influence of Christian principles in our formation was a very good thing.
You're still dancing.
GaYou’re playing some verbal sleight of hand for a “got you”. Forget it, my values are as blue as they get 95 percent of the time.
That right, I did not say that I agreed with the idea of Christian concepts being the source of America’s relative success and prosperity. But, I will tell you what is though. Millions of acres of land absconded from indigenous people, how much would you have an advantage if you acquired land at no price?
Or, perhaps, billions of dollars worth of unrequited labor from black slaves, how many people North and South enriched themselves unjustly over this labor by others. With such advantages, how could you lose? What was it that they use to say to justify theft and enslavement? Oh, I remember now, Christianizing savages? It comes down to taking advantage of vulnerable populations with generous dollops of greed and self-interest mixed in and that is how America became wealthy and consequently, successful. All, using the oldest concept in the world; take from others to enrich yourself.
So, all this Christian nation stuff is just so much BS from my point of view. The Christian nation stuff is just a label, nothing more. America’s interpretation of Christian morality is nothing that I would boast about. I qualify the definition of “Christian morality” as it applies to any ethical superiority of this society and culture.
"our design was influenced and founded on Christian principles, not that it is the only religion to have them. His only arrogance is to think his religion is the right one. All religious believers think the same thing, right?
Yep, only the law can prescribe. Who is the law? It's us through our representatives. On moral decisions, what is the predominant influence for each of us individually? It's probably going to be the morality of our faith, or the morality of their nurturing (in absence of religious faith). Either way, the morality comes from somewhere. Sound right?
So where would the morality that guided the Founders and delegates come from? The obvious answer is one you deny, from the culture of the time." - Gus (the Aristotle of our times)
It has not... and never will be said in a more concise and easily understandable way.What a wonderful surprise I came across this morning, a video that covered the wide spectrum of this thread and many like it that have recently been had...
It acts as a great overview of issues such as how religion and family were perceived not so long ago in politics (harkening back to the dark ages of the Clinton Administration)... and much further back... the Founding Fathers... the impact the French Revolution had on them and the founding of America... the Left and Right that existed even then.
I time stamped it to the most relevant part for a quick view, but recommend the whole video:
https://youtu.be/b1YbQ0LNWxQ?t=466Helluva way to start the day. That was a homerun link Ken, all 40 minutes of it.
I think he makes a lot of sense. The origin story of "The Left and Right was like a Duh! moment. His reasoning is right up my alley.
GAI thought so... glad you liked it.
I think it warrants further consideration... the whole part where he noted people who want Children and Families are Conservative and care about tomorrow...
While people that don't want children are wanting to tear the whole system down and are much more likely to condone violence to do so...
If you don't care about family, children, and the future... perhaps it would be a good thing that your voice is muted in the town-square and in politics.
Psychopaths and nihilists and anarchists... not really needed to help develop a better tomorrow or a safer society IMO.
Related Discussions
- 140
Show me where does the Constitution mention Christ?
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes. I swear to Jesus His son? No.One nation under God, ok. One nation under the...
- 30
Why did the 'founding fathers' separate church and state?
by TessSchlesinger 5 years ago
They didn't believe in separation of church and state, which is why it's not in the constitution. There was a big debate about it. Jefferson did but he was out voted. Also most of them were Christians. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2546951/posts
- 25
The Truth about The Separation of Church and State
by Mick Menous 10 years ago
As far as this whole Separation of Church and State thing in the United States is concerned, I personally believe that it is necessary. For example, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not physically found in the US Constitution. Yet it does say that, quote:“No law shall be passed...
- 17
Was The United States Founded As A Christian Nation?
by PhoenixV 10 years ago
Was The United States Founded As A Christian Nation?
- 152
Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians
by cooldad 14 years ago
Were the founding fathers of this country Christians? I have always been under the impression that our country was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Why then, do so many people claim that this country was created under Christianity? I could be wrong, but I...
- 80
"Separation of Church and State" doesn't seem to apply to Islam here.
by Brenda Durham 15 years ago
This is so much hogwash that's going on in America, perpetuated by the Leftist idealogues who want to shove the Bible into a mudhole along with the Christians.They say Christianity (they label it "religion") is "separate" from State policies, yet they allow a Muslim Imam to have...