2 of 7
2
McCain: America a “Christian Nation” (Merged)
Posted: 01 October 2007 05:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22
Mriana - 01 October 2007 04:29 PM

So many documents that state the U.S. was not founded on Judeo-Christian values, yet people are still under a misconception which is perpetuated by those we have voted into office.  rolleyes  What is wrong with our educational system?

It’s cancelled out by Sunday Schools and Sunday sermons.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2007 09:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01

[quote author=“John McCain”] I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

Will someone show me the words in the Constitution that say, “the United States of America as a Christian nation?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2007 10:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01

Separation of Church and State is a myth.  It is found no where in the Constitution. 

The proposed foot baths do not established a national church, like the Church of England.  Thus, there would be no violation of the Constitution.  Besides, the First Amendment applies only against Congress.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2007 10:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
FredFlash - 29 October 2007 10:18 AM

Separation of Church and State is a myth.  It is found no where in the Constitution.

How do you mean? The “establishment” clause of the First Amendment, as well as the “no religious test” clause were intended precisely to separate church and state.

FredFlash - 29 October 2007 10:18 AM

The proposed foot baths do not established a national church, like the Church of England.  Thus, there would be no violation of the Constitution.  Besides, the First Amendment applies only against Congress.

One does not need to set up a national church in order to fall afoul of the establishment clause. All one needs to do is “make a law respecting an establishment of religion”. Assuming that the airport is on public land, and under the jurisdiction of the state or federal government, it will come under the legal protections of these amendments. (The fourteenth amendment’s reference to “due process” applied the protections from the federal Constitution to the state governments as well).

Anything that the government does which gives preference to one religion over another is ipso facto something that “respects the establishment of religion”. That’s how the Constitution was intended, and that’s how it’s been interpreted by the courts.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2007 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  135
Joined  2007-10-12

Separation of Church and State is a myth.  It is found no where in the Constitution.

This is the thin strand on which opponents of Separation hang their weak argument.  While it is true, you will not find the exact phrase “Separation of Church and State” in the Constitution, it is not a myth that the government should not promote any religion or non-religion over any other religion or non-religion.  In reality, they may well have not used that exact phrase because it may infer a complete separation in all things, which is not the case.  The government is not separate when it comes to protecting the rights of ALL religions and non-religions.  In that sense, they are not separate.

On the other hand, it is funny that proponents of separation will tout that “it is found no where in the Constitution”, and at the same time they will claim the US to be a Christian Nation, even though mentions of Christ or Christianity “is found no where in the Constitution”. cool smirk

 Signature 

“If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another… after the war is on.” - “Fighting Bob” La Follette

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01
dougsmith - 29 October 2007 10:36 AM
FredFlash - 29 October 2007 10:18 AM

Separation of Church and State is a myth.  It is found no where in the Constitution.

How do you mean? The “establishment” clause of the First Amendment, as well as the “no religious test” clause were intended precisely to separate church and state.

The establishment clause merely prohibits the establishment of a national church.  The U. S. Government can establish any religion it wants to, except a national religion.  The prohibition against a religious test merely prohibits a law “requiring all officers civil and military (among other things) to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England, within six months after their admission to office under the penalty of 500£ and disability to hold the office”, or a law that said “no person was capable of being elected to any office relating to the government of any city or corporation, unless, within a twelvemonth before, he had received the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 05:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01
dougsmith - 29 October 2007 10:36 AM

One does not need to set up a national church in order to fall afoul of the establishment clause. All one needs to do is “make a law respecting an establishment of religion”

A law respecting an establishment of religion is a law that sets up a national religion.

Anything that the government does which gives preference to one religion over another.

Those words aren’t in the First Amendment.

That’s how the Constitution was intended. 

The First U. S. Congress established two religions, dude.  But they weren’t national religions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 05:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21
FredFlash - 30 October 2007 05:43 PM
dougsmith - 29 October 2007 10:36 AM

One does not need to set up a national church in order to fall afoul of the establishment clause. All one needs to do is “make a law respecting an establishment of religion”

A law respecting an establishment of religion is a law that sets up a national religion.

Anything that the government does which gives preference to one religion over another.

Those words aren’t in the First Amendment.

I’m sorry Fred, but that’s just bizarre.  It says that there is to be no law respecting an “establishment of religion.”  It does not say an establishment of a “national religion.”  Look at it in front of you.  Are you hoping to oppress all other religious beliefs and persons without religious beliefs with this nonsense?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 05:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01
PaineMan - 29 October 2007 11:34 AM

Separation of Church and State is a myth.  It is found no where in the Constitution.

This is the thin strand on which opponents of Separation hang their weak argument.  While it is true, you will not find the exact phrase “Separation of Church and State” in the Constitution, it is not a myth that the government should not promote any religion or non-religion over any other religion or non-religion. 

The First Amendment says nothing about the government not promoting religion.  All it does is prohibit Congress from establishing a national religion.

In reality, they may well have not used that exact phrase because it may infer a complete separation in all things, which is not the case. 

The only religion that is separated from the U. S. Government is a national religion established by Congress.

The government is not separate when it comes to protecting the rights of ALL religions and non-religions.  In that sense, they are not separate.

The First Amendment says nothing about the government protecting religion.

On the other hand, it is funny that proponents of separation will tout that “it is found no where in the Constitution”, and at the same time they will claim the US to be a Christian Nation, even though mentions of Christ or Christianity “is found no where in the Constitution”

True.  But, I’m not one of those.  However, the nation could be made into a Christian Nation, if the government wanted to do so.  Of course, it could make it an Islamic or Atheist Nation, if it wanted to.  The government has total power over religion, except for a narrow exception that prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
FredFlash - 30 October 2007 05:37 PM

The establishment clause merely prohibits the establishment of a national church.

This is a nonstandard interpretation of the First Amendment. The standard one, supported by history and the opinions of the Court, is as Wiki says HERE:

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, and 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the “separationist” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferentialist” or “accommodationist” interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

We should also, in this regard, remember Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists:

[quote author=“Thomas Jefferson”]Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

FredFlash - 30 October 2007 05:37 PM

The prohibition against a religious test merely prohibits a law “requiring all officers civil and military (among other things) to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England, within six months after their admission to office under the penalty of 500£ and disability to hold the office”, or a law that said “no person was capable of being elected to any office relating to the government of any city or corporation, unless, within a twelvemonth before, he had received the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England.”

question

The prohibition against any religious test is in the Constitution; Article VI, Section 3: “... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Wiki has a short discussion HERE.

[ Edited: 30 October 2007 05:57 PM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
FredFlash - 30 October 2007 05:43 PM

The First U. S. Congress established two religions, dude.  But they weren’t national religions.

Oh yes? And which were those? And how, precisely, do you claim that they were “established”?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 06:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01
erasmusinfinity - 30 October 2007 05:50 PM
FredFlash - 30 October 2007 05:43 PM
dougsmith - 29 October 2007 10:36 AM

One does not need to set up a national church in order to fall afoul of the establishment clause. All one needs to do is “make a law respecting an establishment of religion”

A law respecting an establishment of religion is a law that sets up a national religion.

Anything that the government does which gives preference to one religion over another.

Those words aren’t in the First Amendment.

I’m sorry Fred, but that’s just bizarre.  It says that there is to be no law respecting an “establishment of religion.”  It does not say an establishment of a “national religion.”  Look at it in front of you. 

Dude, the phrase “an establishment of religion”, in 1789, meant an establishment of a national religion.

Are you hoping to oppress all other religious beliefs and persons without religious beliefs with this nonsense?

Nope.  I am in favor of a new amendment that that explicitly and unambiguously prohibits any civil authority, including advisory authority over religion, the duty we owe to our creator, things purely sacred, the things that are God’s, prayer, fasting, thanksgiving, trust in God, the issue of whether we are under God, things that pertain to salvation, the prerogatives of Jehovah or the Kingdom of Christ.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
FredFlash - 30 October 2007 06:03 PM

Nope.  I am in favor of a new amendment that that explicitly and unambiguously prohibits any civil authority, including advisory authority over religion, the duty we owe to our creator, things purely sacred, the things that are God’s, prayer, fasting, thanksgiving, trust in God, the issue of whether we are under God, things that pertain to salvation, the prerogatives of Jehovah or the Kingdom of Christ.

And what about non-Christians? What about non-theist religious people, like some Buddhists? Would they be able to benefit from this amendment as well?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 06:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-11-01
dougsmith - 30 October 2007 05:55 PM
FredFlash - 30 October 2007 05:37 PM

The establishment clause merely prohibits the establishment of a national church.

This is a nonstandard interpretation of the First Amendment.

I know that, dude.  But that’s the way its going to interpreted if the “Christian Nation” crowd gets another justice on the Supreme Court.

We should also, in this regard, remember Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists:

[quote author=“Thomas Jefferson”]Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The letter to the Danbury Baptists wasn’t adopted by the people to be their constitution of national government.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21

So Fred, you are most certainly interested in oppressing all other belief systems apart from your own then.  And you are interested in reworking our government in order to do so.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2