through a little research, i have found what appears to be the occurence of the idea of seperation between church and state. its the first amendment.
"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."
"thay can't make any laws to support a religion or prohibit the free practice of it. so yea, religious reasoning isn't enough to make a law. in fact, its unconstitutional. it has to have a secular reason for the law. because if it doesn't, then its just respecting the establishment of a religion."
a lot of religious fanatics think that doesn't give a seperation between church and state. i don't see how it doesn't. any law can't support a religion nor deny one. the only interpretation that can seem sketchy is the removing of religious icons from government places and what not (like removing the ten commandments from a court house and so forth). Though, the interpretation isn't necessarily a bad one, but its the only one not explicitly stated. if it involves a law, then yes, there is a seperation. i think the whole removing religious stuff from government places is good cause it doesn't show any favoritism or give any reason to think the government would have a conflict of interest in any disputes involving religion.
i have no friggin' clue why i have quotes around the paragraph after the text for the first amendment... i'm tired. and i can't believe i have that "thay" typo... its supposed to be "they"
Funny because "seperation", "church", and "state" are not even mentioned in the amendment. And if you read it, it says it can't make laws establishing a religion. It says it says nothing about support one. Not saying they should, just being a strict constructionist here. You made the supporting jump. Obviously a biased support system could be confused with establishing, and therefore should be stayed clear of.
And you are very funny with your religious reasoning isn't enough to make a law. You can beleive whatever you want, but this country was established on the exact opposite foundation. We have enaliable rights, given to us by GOD. It can't be much more religious then that. So, in your case, the constitution is unconstitutional and the declaration of independance is unconstitutional. You should probably bring that to you congressman, he might be interested.
I just came across a few things, like congress had a chaplain. The same people who wrote about the said "seperation" hired a on-call chaplain, just like a football team. That was probably unconstitutional.
By free exercise of religion, you mean free excercise by everyone but teachers, judges, congressmen, mayors, presidents, or anyone really. I got a better idea, lets rewrite the constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise in someones home or church, but outside of that its fair game."
p.s. jefferson said it to a baptist church because they were worried the wilderness of the world would ruin the garden that is the church. True story, i read it.
wow... all i gotta say is your reading comprehension sucks. "respecting an establishment of religion" not "establish a religion"... jeez. i even gave you the text in my post.
"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."
"thay can't make any laws to support a religion or prohibit the free practice of it. so yea, religious reasoning isn't enough to make a law. in fact, its unconstitutional. it has to have a secular reason for the law. because if it doesn't, then its just respecting the establishment of a religion."
a lot of religious fanatics think that doesn't give a seperation between church and state. i don't see how it doesn't. any law can't support a religion nor deny one. the only interpretation that can seem sketchy is the removing of religious icons from government places and what not (like removing the ten commandments from a court house and so forth). Though, the interpretation isn't necessarily a bad one, but its the only one not explicitly stated. if it involves a law, then yes, there is a seperation. i think the whole removing religious stuff from government places is good cause it doesn't show any favoritism or give any reason to think the government would have a conflict of interest in any disputes involving religion.
Reply
Reply
And you are very funny with your religious reasoning isn't enough to make a law. You can beleive whatever you want, but this country was established on the exact opposite foundation. We have enaliable rights, given to us by GOD. It can't be much more religious then that. So, in your case, the constitution is unconstitutional and the declaration of independance is unconstitutional. You should probably bring that to you congressman, he might be interested.
I just came across a few things, like congress had a chaplain. The same people who wrote about the said "seperation" hired a on-call chaplain, just like a football team. That was probably unconstitutional.
By free exercise of religion, you mean free excercise by everyone but teachers, judges, congressmen, mayors, presidents, or anyone really. I got a better idea, lets rewrite the constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise in someones home or church, but outside of that its fair game."
p.s. jefferson said it to a baptist church because they were worried the wilderness of the world would ruin the garden that is the church. True story, i read it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment