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?
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????
"So, what is the separation of Church & State as reflected in law? As reflected in the Bible?" Hmmm. Let's see. We are no longer permitted to sell our daughters into slavery. Rapoes don't get away with their crime by paying off the victim's father and marry her, we are not permitted to murder someone for working on Sunday, rape is a crime, etc. The Bibull was written for poorly educated 1st-century goat herders not for 21st-century living standards.
The separation of church and state isn't in any laws, by all I can glean it is the misinterpretation the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as I posted below.
What is almost unknown to the people-en-mass is because of the Nicene Council the Vatican is a major player behind most western nations' laws and interpretations. It is one of the major holders of the world's money which gives it "dictatorship" in what man-en-mass believes. All denomination of Christianity still have ties to it and indirectly obey its dictate. "Separation of church and state" is just one of its commands.
That you "interpret" the first amendment differently than most people, and different than the Supreme Court, doesn't make your conclusion correct. On the contrary, the SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and does have both the responsibility and authority to interpret it, whereupon their decision becomes law.
Whether you agree with their interpretation or not (I sometimes do not), the fact remains that it IS the law.
According to what is written in the United States Constitution, since it's said to be the supreme document of this land, "We The People" are supposed to be the authority for interpreting the it and I'm doing it on behalf of us. The people's "trustees" and the people who made SCOTUS to be the highest court over the Constitution's making the Supreme Court of this land to be and in our constitution it reads "any constitution or law ... to the contrary" IS INVALID.
I see. You have taken it upon yourself to be the supreme interpreter, although the rest of us delegate that responsibility to the SCOTUS.
Article III, section I of the constitution establishes this: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
It does NOT say "Final determination of law is vested in The0NatureBoy".
No, I am not the interpreter, the Constitution's wording made it the interpreter. Your problem is you have bought into the "politically correctness" MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, has schooled man-en-mass into believing in. She established the SCOTUS for the reason contradict the constitution since they were schooling man-en-mass to believe in the leadership rather than the constitution.
Since The0NatureBoy chose education [i.e, "to objectively observe, participate as needed for seeing various outcomes, reasoning with them and establishing the ABILITY TO REVEAL THOSE REASONINGS to others"] it only make him not a follower of external leaders to my own discarnating like "schools of fish" often do. You may continue to be led by man intent on controlling your very thoughts if you want but NatureBoy has broken that chain which once bound him.
Be at PEACE as you follow your external leader.
Wait. The constitution is responsible for explaining what the constitution means? That doesn't even begin to make sense. On the other hand, the constitution designating SCOTUS to explain the meaning of centuries old wording DOES make perfect sense: the writers of the document understood that it is all too easy to give false meaning and solved it by defining who is to do it.
You do understand that accepting what the law says, abiding by that law, and particularly agreeing with the morality of a law are very different things? SCOTUS defines the law and we are bound by it whether we like it or not. You make your own call whether the law is moral and right, and so do I, but that determination does not relieve us of the necessity of abiding by it: only removing ourselves from the reaches of the American justice system can do that.
Everything and anything written explains what IT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN, it is the false government's schooling man-en-mass not to educate themselves to prevent comprehending what is written and require another source other than what is written to explain it. Show me in the writings of the constitution where it say the SCOTUS is necessary to interpret it, PLEASE!!!!
SCOTUS defends all laws except the constitution, the preamble defined what the constitution intends to achieve and "anything in it" or other laws disagreeing with it "not withstanding" or INVALID. Why doesn't the constitution say the SCOTUS is the supreme laws, obey it then the constitution? Explain that to me, if you can where its is within reason,please!!! You say the constitution say it then show me the Article or Amendment saying that.
That's great. Then we don't need you to interpret the constitution for it explains what it is supposed to mean. And when it says "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court..." it means exactly that and not that NatureBoy shall determine what the constitution says. The judicial power (the power to describe, interpret and enforce laws) is vested in the SCOTUS. That IS what it says and, from your own statement is what it means. It doesn't say to deal with all laws except the constitution, as you claim, it says ALL laws. Very obviously including the constitution.
As I already pointed out it is in Article III, section I. I leave it to you to google that and read it for yourself.
True Dat because the Supreme Court's unJustices are bought by corporation who have them saying "money is speech" and "corporations are people" therefore they are making the "Supreme Court Of The United States" to not be interpreting it according to the Preamble's intent.
The word Preamble means "a preview of what the entire document intends to achieve" but the SCOTUS has never spoken denounced political parties, classes, ethnic differences and many other differences which prohibit the nation from perfecting its intended unity. It never spoke out against different justices for ethnic, classes, jobs, income and others. It never disallowed one man calling another "three fifths of a man" nor slavery [which they encouraged it for crimes legitimate or otherwise]. I could go through the entire six unified intentions the SCOTUS and show how they ignored the preamble when interpreting the Constitution.
How about the SCOTUS' allowing congress to give printing of the United States of America's money to a corporate bank then borrow and repay it with interest?
Why didn't the Supreme Court prohibit Trump as a candidate for the President contrary toArticle 2:4?
Yet you are going to tell me they are the Constitution's interpreters without a vision of what it intended to achieve. GET REAL!!
I get that you don't like at least some (Most? All?) of the decisions SCOTUS comes up with. I don't always agree with them either.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with their right and duty to interpret the constitution. It absolutely does not make you, or I, the Supreme Interpreter, the one charged with determining what the law is. That you don't like the system does NOT mean it is something that you would prefer; it remains what it is no matter how much you may dislike it. And that, in turn, means that SCOTUS really IS the final word on what the Constitution means.
The Constitution's Preamble disapprove some (Most? All?) of the decisions SCOTUS came up with, Article 6 ["any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding", meaning INVALID] means any Thing, One or group interpreting the constitution is invalid. That means SCOTUS are "Domestic Enemies" of the Constitution of the United states of America. As "Domestic Enemies" of the constitution they took an oath to protect the nation does not have a true source of interpreting it. That is written in the constitution and needs no interpretation. Only someone interpreting the Articles and Amendments according are to be considered the proper interpreter.
I would have thought you understand what is written in the constitution but I see your only interest is in ATTEMPTING to cause everyone to accept SCOTUS' lies as to how to interpret the document.
It disproves it by your interpretation: that of the SCOTUS obviously differs. We've already looked at which one the constitution says counts, and it isn't yours.
"...your only interest is in ATTEMPTING to cause everyone to accept SCOTUS' lies as to how to interpret the document."
My interest is in what the law says. Yours appears to be in trying to convince the gullible that the constitutions says you are the ultimate authority on it. Sorry, but I'm not that gullible - I truly can read, and it doesn't say what you claim it does.
The constitution say every interpretation not in harmony with the Preamble - a pre expression of the intent of the document - CAN IN NO WAY STAND so if you are a party to the interpretation by SCOTUS you are favoriting a far more vile interpretation than mine. Your problem is you gets paid because of how SCOTUS interprets it and I gets nothing from interpreting it closer to the preamble's intent so it makes since for you to attempt to convince me - and I know money talks and TRUTH walks so you will not accept mine - so if we talked until we are blue in the face I will not embrace such corrupt interpretation, I understand what I read too well.
"The constitution say every interpretation not in harmony with the Preamble - a pre expression of the intent of the document - CAN IN NO WAY STAND"
So show me. Give me a quote from the preamble saying that, along with one saying that you are the deciding factor whether to accept your interpretation or that of SCOTUS.
" Your problem is you gets paid because of how SCOTUS interprets it and I gets nothing from interpreting it closer to the preamble's intent"
You are 100% correct in that you gets nothing from making interpretations different than the one that the designated interpreter has made. Seems reasonable as the constitution assigns that responsibility, duty and authority to the SCOTUS, while you are never mentioned at all.
The definition of Preamble is "what the entire document intends to establish" along with the sixth article's saying "any Thing in the Constitution ... not withstanding" combines to say "every interpretation not in harmony with the Preamble .. CAN IN NO WAY STAND" or don't you understand words?
I am 100% correct in knowing you are a paid misinterpreter for the corrupt court and governors to keep the people misinformed. It does assigned those responsible to a supreme court who will interpret the document's intentions in ever decision because it say in the sixth article that they will take an oath to protect the constitution form "enemies foreign and domestic." I have a letter dated in 2017 from them saying the supreme court has no "original Jurisdiction claims" when Article 3:2:2 reads in part "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" and since I practices my religion that makes me a "public Minister".
I am talking from my experience of dealing with the inferior court using SCOTUS as it's title.
My paychecks, for the last 50 years, have not arrived for my interpretative job. As the supreme justice enforcer/interpreter, will you please make sure that I get them, preferably before I die of old age?
Just as you say, I am 100% positive that you are NOT the final call on the law in the US. Whether by the authority of the US Constitution, congress, the president, or a vote of the people you have not been appointed to such position by anyone but yourself. Unfortunately, that in turn means that your opinions are considered valuable only by yourself; no one else cares.
I can not understand how anyone can be so willing to protect corruption without getting paid, anyone listening to your pointless arguments would almost swear you are receiving pay for your unfounded and support less views.
I have never said I have the finial call on US law but the Constitution's "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" is 100% the finial call concerning what should and should not be accepted as the constitution's interpretation or as the United States and individual state's laws.
"I have never said I have the finial call on US law but the Constitution's "to form a more perfect Union..."
And yet, you DID say exactly that: "We The People" are supposed to be the authority for interpreting the it and I'm doing it on behalf of us." If you are the one interpreting the highest laws of the land then you most certainly do have final call on US law.
On the other hand wondering how I can support corruption, and so on, only indicates you haven't read my posts very carefully at all, for I haven't done anything of the sort. Merely pointed out who is legally responsible for interpreting the constitution, along with quotations proving it. Doing that does not mean supporting it, corrupt or not.
On the other hand I WILL go out on a limb and say that accepting your opinion, an unknown voice on the internet, over that of 9 people experienced in law that have spent a lifetime in that pursuit, would seem rather foolish. They may be corrupted, they may not, but for sure they have vastly more knowledge of law AND the constitution than you do. That you have claimed you are the one responsible for interpreting all of our laws makes that pretty clear.
Your being animate that SCOUTS' interpretation is correct means you condone it. One should only condones truth and not what is practiced unless they feel the practice is correct. All of your post justifies the corrupt interpretations and present nothing to show they are not, suggest "you are playing devil's advocate" or you accept it. When one doesn't accept something as correct they generally look to correct it but you've not. I did read them carefully looking for any sense of your disapproval and have yet to find any.
I beg to disagree that they have more knowledge of the law than I, they have been practicing "their corrupt form of law" for many years they can't know the truth of "the supreme law" or they would at least pretend to honor it. Law schools doesn't even teach the constitution, their primary teachings are how to argue most convincingly, not the law. That's subverting the law and they all have been to law school.
Thurgood Marshall was made a Supreme Court Justice because HE USED THE CONSTITUTION WHEN HE CAME BEFORE THE SCOTUS and forced them to judge constitutionally or be impeached. "The Deep state" chose not to kill such a man of integrity and make him a Justice, That prevented him from constitutionally convincing the 9 to follow the law of their oath by making him one voice of the 9. With that kind of understanding, there is no way I am willing to surrender the Constitution's interpretation to them.
I have chosen to follow "in all of your getting get understanding" therefore I seek alternative views to the most used laws since they don't to eliminate questions and present less than a complete view of each matter. In knowing the preamble was the first thing written and defined as "the prelude to what is to be accomplished", when we define each of those six things we see almost nothing in this nation's governing is according to it, therefore, my interpretation is more supreme than their's. I accept being that conceded but not that I "claimed [I am] the one responsible for interpreting all of our laws". According to the constitution's reading, what is written in most Statutory and laws congress passed opposes "the will of We The People" so, yes, I recognizes the government's corruption and will NOT STOP "shouting it from the rooftop".
"Your being animate that SCOUTS' interpretation is correct means you condone it."
I'm very sorry, but I read the constitution and it says SCOTUS is in charge. According to you the constitution needs no interpretation - it interprets itself - the constitution says SCOTUS is in charge, so SCOTUS is in charge. Very simple, actually.
"One should only condones truth and not what is practiced unless they feel the practice is correct."
And if you feel something is incorrect you will pretend to the the Master Interpreter for all people (again, what you said). I disagree that that is a reasonable course of action as it produces zero results.
"All of your post justifies the corrupt interpretations and present nothing to show they are not..."
Except it is impossible for SCOTUS to produce corrupt interpretations as it is in charge (see above). That you find them corrupt simply means you're trying (again) to interpret the law as YOU think best rather than what the people designated as the proper authority for interpretation feels proper. Still doesn't work - see above.
"..therefore I seek alternative views to the most used laws since they don't to eliminate questions and present less than a complete view of each matter. "
I understand this. And I find that it presents no problem for anyone...as long as you don't try to use your "alternate view" as either a legal requirement or legal argument. As SCOTUS is in charge, not you, your alternative views are worthless outside your own mind. You may shout until Hell is frozen, but it means naught except that you will have a sore throat; everyone else reads the constitution and understands that SCOTUS was appointed High Judge of the land, not you.
When anyone comprehend the preamble's six intents "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" as the intention achievement by the entire document there is no need for interpreting it. All anyone needs to do is compare every action to them, if what they are doing represent "uniting people and states, proper compensation for actions, each individual's satisfaction with their state of being, ensuring people and land is protected, all life has access to their life sustaining requirements and every individual has the liberty they deem approbate for then without encroaching on others unfairly or necessarily everything else will be routine and clearly the fulfillment of the constitution.
The foregoing definition of the Preamble says when something is or isn't "for all people" (as you say).
"Except it is impossible for SCOTUS to produce corrupt interpretations as it is in charge" is the most ignorant statement I've heard lousy yet. That alone means you justifies SCOTUS corruption.
My views represents the meaning of the preamble's intent and anyone who the rest of the document allows the appointment or election of, including every government worker is the practice, has taken an oath to ensure this nation operates by those principles. Why else would everyone, SCOTUS included, take an oath to protect something they, in many cases, don't even know what in in it? What is the purpose for taking the oath if they don't know how the constitution reads.
Look at how Article 2:3 has the phrase "[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" which gives PRESIDENTS the power to deny SCOTUS' decisions WHEN contrary to the constitution. THANK YOU!
"...which gives PRESIDENTS the power to deny SCOTUS' decisions WHEN contrary to the constitution."
See, right here is your problem. When SCOTUS is in charge of telling us what the constitution says, you don't get to say they are wrong. You were not given that authority, only SCOTUS. Legally, then, they cannot make a decision contrary to the constitution as they are the sole judge of what it says.
The Preamble, "prelude to what is to be accomplished" reads with interpretations of each of the six clauses "We the People [every man including boys, girls, adolescents, children and babies who are citizens] of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union [without divisions of states, different political parties, ethnics, genders and age] establish Justice [proper compensation for actions], insure domestic Tranquility [concerning every individual's choice of life not harming others], provide for the common defence [of territory and people from abuse], promote the general Welfare [ensuring the needs of all people are met]], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [the people will not be restricted by prohibitions concerning their needs, speaking, movements, religion and rights to food, the land and water], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Of the three checks and balances, president, congress with two houses and supreme court, Article 2:3 gave the president the position to oversee the "execution" of the laws so he is above SCOTUS' interpretation when not concurring with at least one of the intents. Article 3:1 say the adjudication of the law is for "the SCOTUS and inferior courts" but overseeing the "execution" of them is the president position. Say what you will that is how it interprets.
Therefore, regarding the "separation of church" and state per Amendment 1...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Religion is only "giving homage to one's deity" which, contrary to many practices, does not include making sacrifices of anything except one's time to contemplating the will of god.
With this Dis-United States being "MYSTERY, BABYLON [speaking confusingly]..." many word definitions are lost to the general populace which cause them to follow the various leaders blindly which, using scare tactics, religions embraces to get people to obey their commands. Because of knowing the above religion definition the ratifiers of the constitution took that phrase out of the "Declaration of Independence" to prohibit the governors from disallow their assembling and sharing their views [Quakers comes to mind] as they may feel inspired to do so.
The latter part of the amendment is because, during religion's sharing they may see the governors improperly imposing themselves on others, such as on the "New Landers" [Indians], so they were to be allowed to publicize that information as well as to show the governors the error of their actions, thus, the rest of the Amendment relates to Religion also.
Those are the facts, dispute them.
"Religion is only "giving homage to one's deity" which, contrary to many practices, does not include making sacrifices of anything except one's time to contemplating the will of god. "
Unfortunately, that homage is all too often requiring that everyone around make the same sacrifices that the believer does, and it isn't just time. No commerce on the chosen religious observation day of the week. No marrying the one you love unless they are of the opposite sex. No alcohol. No revealing clothing. Money, to help support their worship. Sometimes even required attendance at worship services. No driving of cars for some, no education, no ownership of property, etc.
The list is absolutely endless of what sacrifices religious believers will demand of the people around them, and the end result has been not only that government cannot make a religion, but cannot even begin to observe one. A SCOTUS decision I happen agree with and, given what religion does when becomes government authority, one I happen to think the constitution intended.
"Of the three checks and balances, president, congress with two houses and supreme court, Article 2:3 gave the president the position to oversee the "execution" of the laws so he is above SCOTUS' interpretation when not concurring with at least one of the intents. Article 3:1 say the adjudication of the law is for "the SCOTUS and inferior courts" but overseeing the "execution" of them is the president position. Say what you will that is how it interprets. "
Unfortunately, that isn't how I or the rest of the country interprets this article. The President is responsible for "executing" the laws - for enforcing them. He is NOT responsible for determining what the law IS - that is the task of SCOTUS. That you interpret it differently does not make it so - not in a land where SCOTUS has the final say.
Few people know that marriage is not the created order for man as where they, biblically, were created they're only told to "be fruitful and multiply": it was those man created to begin civilization who implemented marriage int "woman's" relationships. Therefore the homage you speak of is not to their deity but to Adam and Eve the tradition's beginners. Being here in "MYSTERY, BABYLON [speaking without understanding word's meanings] THE GREAT."
Although Christianity was the religion of most Europeans to arrive here the constitution does not specify any religion which means any and all religions [paying homage to their deity without sacrificing another life] has the right to their free exercise of their practices.
Proselytizing is not something "true religion" does, they are so different from the nonreligious that their appearance will cause other's to inquire concerning their way of life. [See 1 Peter 2:9 "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light;"] With that being the truth of the matter, I can not agree with your realization that SCOTUS holds the highest authority to of interpreting the constitution.
"Therefore the homage you speak of is not to their deity but to Adam and Eve the tradition's beginners."
Except that the vast majority (all, as far as I've ever heard) of people disagree with you: their god has spoken (through their priesthood) and said gays cannot marry. Once more, you don't get to define what people believe or how they interpret their scripture for their own use. That you claim it is obvious that homage is to A&E does not make it so, and certainly does not determine just who the people are paying homage to.
"Proselytizing is not something "true religion" does..."
Once more, you do not have any right whatsoever to define what a "true religion" is or does. Every religion I've ever heard of proselytizes, if nothing more than a billboard outside their church, and that you will use that as a reason to define them as not "true" does not make it so. That is NOT one of the characteristics that is used to define religion.
"With that being the truth of the matter, I can not agree with your realization that SCOTUS holds the highest authority to of interpreting the constitution. "
I understand that - it's what I keep saying. You don't want it to be true, so ignore what the constitution says in favor of using your own personal rules. SCOTUS may not be the "highest authority" in YOUR mind, but to the constitution (the law) and the opinion of the rest of the nation it most certainly is. Their interpretation may or may not agree with your, other individual's, interpretation, but theirs becomes law while yours does not - that simple, succinct, fact makes a huge difference. In the law, if not in your opinion or mine.
"Executing" the law is all encompassing, interpreting and providing for th punishment thereof.
You are wrong. Plain and simple, you are wrong.
Guess it's all about "interpretation" isn't it? You want to be able to bypass the SCOTUS with your opinion and now the President's, but it can't happen because the law and constitution says differently.
What it's all about is whether "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT'S..." taught babbling definitions are correct or if the eternal definitions are correct. For those who profit because of Babylon's taught definitions her definitions will be correct, for those who are in some stage of enlightenment it's the eternal definitions.
That is why we differ, you love that which is maintaining your desired way of life in the US' status quo while I seek and depend on that which was before man came into the knowledge of good and evil which killed their ability to comprehend. You look through eyes seeing opposites as being different while I see them as integrated in each other with one showing more of itself than the other therefore we will not likely agree unless the one of us who haven't sought enlightenment begin to seek it or the one who has deny what they have found.
No, we aren't much different there, except that I DO realize that our definitions of good and evil have changed considerably (and for the better) since days of old.
The problem is not that we have such a different concept of what is right and wrong; the biggest problem is that you seem to think you have rights that you don't actually have. The law says what it says, and you don't get to change the meaning of the words because you don't like what it is. There are acceptable methods for changing law, but determining that you have the right to do it arbitrarily, outside legal methods, just doesn't work. And it doesn't work because you think the ancients gave you the privilege; it doesn't work because the people today haven't given you that right.
SCOTUS decisions are defined as being right, and if you don't agree, why then you have every right to try and convince the people to change the law until the SCOTUS interpretation agrees with what you think the law should be. But that's your only option: to simply decide that your opinion of what should be over rides the will of the other 300 million people in the country is not going to work; not now, not ever. It isn't about what is right or wrong; it's about the method you have decided to use to change it into something else.
The actual difference is I know my destiny and few other people do, at the present time, which gives me an "enlightened" view of the world and it's purpose while you probably don't see the cycle to earth and its two civilizations. Therein lies the differences.
I don't know if you have ever read any of my hubs but you might read some of them. When my interpretation of the constitution and Bible are implemented it will be the only time this nation will have become a nation governed by it's constitution and been at peace.
Is it possible that you believe your "enlightened" state, above and superior to all other people, gives you the right to re-write law as you see fit? I really doubt it, but if so you might seek help for the delusion, though it's more likely you are still trying to ignore the difference between legal matters and your personal concept of right and wrong. They are NOT the same thing, and there is even a difference between law and what is really right and wrong.
What is impossible is for someone who doesn't know definitions of words to argue facts, that is your is what you are pretending to be. Either way, our talking is like me providing water [symbolizing knowledge] while you are spreading oil to eliminate the interpretation of words. yu must be a well schooled attorney, argue to wind and not to present the facts.
Bye and be at peace.
I am not arrogant enough to pretend to know God's intentions
The supposed "separation of church and state" is only a misinterpretation of Amendment one's phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but it does not imply that at all. It disallow governmental laws to disrespect religious establishments from PRACTICING their beliefs with the kicker "as long as they do no harm to themselves nor others. In that day's writers used commas and/or semicolons along with conjunctions while today's punctuating require either or which make it appear to be two separate statements. It has a "double subject" with religion first followed by practice as a latter.
With that understanding any religious violation of the nations laws designed to "to form a more prefect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, provide for the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity" are punishable by law. It doesn't matter if the person is in government, law enforcement, Judiciary or business no one's religion allows discrimination and or prohibits causing any of those six condition to be violated.
So again, there is no evidence to support separation of church and state.
US constitution is clear. The government is forbidden from taking on any official religion or funding one. This is for two reasons. One is to prevent religious persecution of any other religion, and because of guaranteed freedom of religion.
It is required in any multi cultural society in order to treat all citizens equally, including atheists.
In Canada the constitution also guarantees religious freedom. Church and state are separate. The difference is, in the US you have a hard time getting elected unless you profess some sort of faith. In Canada you can't get elected if you mention religion. You can get elected if you're religious, just leave it at home. You represent all citizens. Your religion is irrelevant to the issues. .You can vote how you like, just don't mention you're doing it for your religion, and don't try to sway votes on a religious basis.
I think that's how it should be. So did the religious people who gave America their constitution.
According to the last clause in the U.S. Constitution's Article 6, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", and Amendment 1's, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", the United States' tradition of claiming religion is in violation of the constitution. What has happened is an unauthorized replacement constitution has been used for governing this nation for so many years few of today's "We The People", except those the Supreme Court's saying "Corporations are People", know anything about it.
Those who wrote the constitution intended this for nation to break the tradition of religions being the "brainwashing scare tactics" scaring the people into submission to the government. However, when we look close at Amendment 1 everything in it suggests religions, Quakers for example, are to assemble, discuss, publish their findings and when they see the government violating the Constitution they are to "in writing" petition the government of their error(s). We have the people making lots of noise before the government without showing specific violations of the Constitution needing correcting.
With that understanding, there is no "separation of Church and State" in the U.S. and the state is allowed two punish "child molesting" priests and nuns which England was not to do. It's the "Deep State's" control of government that has made it appear to be here but the constitution reads differently.
I'm agreeing with you, Slarty O'Brian, not opposing.
A very well written reply. Being Canadian I don't know enough about your history to argue with you on these points, but I do know the Quakers were running from English persecution when they came there. So your claims have , in my uneducated opinion about the subject,, a good chance of being true, for what ever that's worth.
I was just putting my opinion about the necessity of separation of church and state in the mix. That I am qualified to argue.
A good example is the Puritans in the early US. They, too, ran from persecution...only to set up one of the worst religion controlled societies we've seen, persecuting anyone not of their belief and most of those that were. Yes, separation is a necessity - the writers of the constitution knew that, wrote it into our constitution and the Supreme Court recognizes that.
Why did the atheist Trump claim a religion if the Dis-United States of America's Amend 1 require separation of church ands state? Why was there such of a concern because JFK as a Catholic? The misinterpretation of Amendment 1 by the supreme court is the culprit responsible for it and I have yet to find any evidence suggesting it.
Your characterization of Trump being atheist is out of line: I've never heard or seen make that claim.
To get elected: the constitution does not say that no one may vote based on their religious principles - only that govt. cannot supply that religion.
Because many people don't like Catholics and feel they are not Christian. They want a Christian president (and govt., in their foolishness).
Are you confusing what people want and what the law is?
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?
Here are a few links:
Pro Separation of Church & State
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/Re … tyMain.cfm
Anti-Separation of Church & State
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesAr … asp?id=123
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
Haven't we done the whole Founding Fathers thing before?
I'm getting a Groundhog Day sensation ...
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.
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.
"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.
The bible spent an entire section (let's call it the Old Testament) detailing why Church ruling state equates to unfortunate things.
The next section points to the realm of religion being separate.
I beg to disagree, LTL.
Most of the Old Testament is spent showing how king and president ruled nations usually fail. For the most parts, before Israel rebelled against "judges" ruling the land they faired well but when they turned to kings and presidents ruling everything went downhill, in all except a few cases. You should reread it and see.
However you interpret it, the end result was a failed system. Failing so miserably that the inhabitants of the realm were enslaved and subsequently scattered across the breadth of the, then, civilized world.
After which, they displayed a singular inability to assimilate which eventually led to another scattering which lasted over 1000 years.
Definitely not something to aspire to emulate.
We,as humans, have the unfortunate inclination to think we know better than another. Where one fails, we simply assume we can succeed. Every known example of a theocracy is a miserable display of government. Will some never learn?
"Every known example of a theocracy is a miserable display of government" is true when they are human/woman [inccomplete man unable to comprehend all things] running things. "The Son of Man" who is to be the last ruler of these Dis-United States of America is to be "one of" or "the only" exception.
Tell you what. When Jesus appears, I'll have faith in that theocracy. Until then, let's leave religion out of government.
Few people know that Christianity is the prediction of the Dis-United States of America, it's rise and fall. As long as we talk about the happenings in the USA we are talking religion, true also of almost every nation since religion means "a source of reverence" and not a belief in god as it usually implies here in MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT...
You think not? Check out Genesis 49:8-12, interpreting the symbolism = USA
Micah 5:2's "thou, Bethlehem [means 'house of bread'] Ephratah [means 'plentiful' with the USA being 'the land of plenty'], though thou be little [first read last, then least and now little] among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Daniel 2:41-44 describes the USA.
Those three tells us where the finial Christ comes to.
Ezekiel 28:13-18 is the USA prior to and after being taken by England.
Revelation 17:15 [the same as Daniel 2:41-43] & 18 is how she will be destroyed by Atomic, Nuclear, napalm and all other weapons she has used in the 3 wars [European Wars 1 & 2, Vietnam and not the middle east].
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Read and believe out deny it, your choice.
I would assert that those who want church lording over state are possibly insecure in their beliefs, incapable of instilling their values in their children (possibly because they don't live by the values they espouse) and lack the ability of self restraint.
It's annoying to see people refer to God as a person with an opinion rather than an inexorable force of nature that civilizations have refined over many millennia to represent the best possible authority over behavior . Anything "intended" is human intended and along with that always comes with some inherent margin for error. The Son of God is meant to serve as a means to update the system across time.as circumstances change. Yes, Christ wants us to use some common sense.
The concept of god and devil both annoy me because of how Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" reading in the present tense.
Everything that ever happens does in the same ways eternally, there has never been a beginning nor will there be an end to anything except the various cycles.
"Son of God" and "Son or Man" both means one who has devoted much of their life to the process necessary for comprehending everything's purposes. They overcome judging things which removes the blinders from human's minds which prevent one from understanding, after all, man means "mind able to comprehend all things" and is not A GENDER.
by JP Carlos 6 years ago
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?Many policies and bills being passed by the government seem to encrouch on religious beliefs. Also, the church has been very active in the state's affairs (at least here in the Philippines). Is the separtion of church and state still...
by M. T. Dremer 2 years ago
Does the use of "In God We Trust" on our currency violate the separation of church and state?"In God We Trust" wasn't always on U.S. currency. I believe it was put on coins in the 1860s and then later on paper money in the 1950s. From what I understand, court cases have already...
by Mick Menous 4 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...
by Rad Man 6 years ago
The USA is supposed to be a secular society, but the religion or faith of their politicians seems to be of upmost importance. Canada for example, is also a secular society, but their citizens don't care what faith their politicians practice. What happened to the separation of church and state?
by Dwayne Smith 4 years ago
Separation of Church and State?Separation of Church and State is a hot topic currently, but to me, the trend seems to focus on things like the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments in public buildings, yet religious state laws, like alcohol on Sundays, for instance, are rarely mentioned or...
by PhoenixV 3 years ago
Was The United States Founded As A Christian Nation?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|