Separation of church and state?

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
46
Austin
Marklar
₥663
Whatever happened to this?

(Did it ever exist?)

I'm just curious about Bush's policies to nominate and elect people who are particularly religious (Christian). He is also very outspoken when it comes to his own Christian beliefs. Of course I'm speaking about Harriet Miers, the Supreme Court nominee ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9673338/ ), but I've never understood how it's not okay to display the 10 commandments in a courthouse but it's perfectly fine for the leader of the country to publicly profess his religion, and nominate a very religious individual as one of the highest judicial authorities in the land. Makes no damn sense. No religion in court, unless it's the highest court?
 
Last edited:
Republicans have traditionally been very Christian. I think a more literal interpretation of separation of church and state is to say that the church doesn't hold political office over the state as the Catholic church once did. I think that the whole "OMG dont' mention God" is typical of how Democrats take something, chew it up and spit it out as something completely foreign to the original sentiment.
 
Pandora said:
It never existed. This is nothing new. Remember that time "under God" was added to the pledge to piss off the commies? As long as Republicans have any role in government the Rightious Wing will always have an influence.
Not true. The founding fathers were very very careful to try and keep state and church separate because they saw the hold that the Catholic church had over most of Europe. Seems people have forgotten that lession.
 
Well.... if you want non-religious people to be elected... start doing something to get this done. The sad truth is, non-religious people just don't vote in numbers like the religious people do.

That is like wanting a non-greek (as in fraternity) person elected to be a student official. Sure, in some schools it happens, but not likely. Is it because the greeks outnumber the non-greeks? Doubt it, it is because most of the non-greeks don't care to be involved with that shit. Even though it effects them. (Or is that affects?)

And yes, I'm guilty of this.
 
theacoustician said:
Not true. The founding fathers were very very careful to try and keep state and church separate because they saw the hold that the Catholic church had over most of Europe. Seems people have forgotten that lession.
The thing is, you won't be able to have any sort of ethic or morality instilled in the state without someone claiming it to be religious
 
zengirl said:
Republicans have traditionally been very Christian. I think a more literal interpretation of separation of church and state is to say that the church doesn't hold political office over the state as the Catholic church once did. I think that the whole "OMG dont' mention God" is typical of how Democrats take something, chew it up and spit it out as something completely foreign to the original sentiment.


I edited my post to be more clear. I recall the absolute furor over the 10 commandments being displayed in that courthouse (Georgia I guess?), and ironically how it made its way all the way to the Supreme Court.

From the CNN article in March: "The issue of whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on government property goes before the Supreme Court Wednesday, in a pair of potentially landmark cases that test religion's cultural and legal status in American society.

The justices will consider whether displaying the commandments represents state endorsement of religion , or simply recognizes and reflects the role that code has played in U.S. moral and legal traditions.

The Decalogue, as it is also known, forms a pillar of belief in Christianity, Judaism and Islam."


So again, it's this great debate over whether to display a religious code in courthouses across the nation or in the Supreme Court, but not a great debate to openly admit that you are nominating someone to the Supreme Court because they are very religious? It's contradictory. A state endorsement of religion is a state endorsement of religion. Call it what you like.
 
Last edited:
theacoustician said:
Which is why we have the Bill of Rights.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their CREATOR...."

:lol:

Nothing religious about that, huh?

but that's not the bill of rights and I failed government class


:eek:
 
Sarcasmo said:
I edited my post to be more clear. I recall the absolute furor over the 10 commandments being displayed in that courthouse (Georgia I guess?), and ironically how it made its way all the way to the Supreme Court.

From the CNN article in March: "The issue of whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on government property goes before the Supreme Court Wednesday, in a pair of potentially landmark cases that test religion's cultural and legal status in American society.

The justices will consider whether displaying the commandments represents state endorsement of religion, or simply recognizes and reflects the role that code has played in U.S. moral and legal traditions.

The Decalogue, as it is also known, forms a pillar of belief in Christianity, Judaism and Islam."


So again, it's this great debate over whether to display a religious code in courthouses across the nation or in the Supreme Court, but not a great debate to openly admit that you are nominating someone to the Supreme Court because they are very religious? It's contradictory. A state endorsement of religion is a state endorsement of religion. Call it what you like.
But the thing is you can consider religion to be like race or sex. Like anything else it will have an influence on who you are as a person, but as a Supreme Court Justice, one has to interpret the Constitution, not make judement calls based upon their feelings.
 
zengirl said:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their CREATOR...."

:lol:

Nothing religious about that, huh?

but that's not the bill of rights and I failed government class


:eek:


It's not religious at all. Everyone believes they came from somewhere, and the Bill of Rights is pointing out that regardless of where you believe you come from, you are entitled to certain self-evident truths.
 
zengirl said:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their CREATOR...."

:lol:

Nothing religious about that, huh?

but that's not the bill of rights and I failed government class


:eek:
Not at the time. That was considered very radical when it was written and by whom it was written. You have to remember, at the time, everyone was a Christian, with a few Jews here and there. People had heard of Muslims, but there weren't any around. That's about it. Any other religion was thought of as crazy talk and the idea of no God at all what something they simply couldn't grasp.

The founding fathers were people who were so hard core religious that they left the most powerful nations on earth to live in some backwater hellhole known as America. To only make minor references to God was not smilied upon by many at the time.
 
Sarcasmo said:
Whatever happened to this?

(Did it ever exist?)

I'm just curious about Bush's policies to nominate and elect people who are particularly religious (Christian). He is also very outspoken when it comes to his own Christian beliefs. Of course I'm speaking about Harriet Miers, the Supreme Court nominee ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9673338/ ), but I've never understood how it's not okay to display the 10 commandments in a courthouse but it's perfectly fine for the leader of the country to publicly profess his religion, and nominate a very religious individual as one of the highest judicial authorities in the land. Makes no damn sense. No religion in court, unless it's the highest court?

Speaking of Harriet Miers; last night on CNN some dumbass democrat was being interviewed (I was cleaning up the bedroom and only listening to the TV so I don't know who said it) and he said something similar to: "the nomination of Harriet Miers is unspeakable and unimaginable..." Unimaginable? We laughed at that one. It was if he was describing the holocaust. The reporter went on to tell the viewers how Bush and Ms. Miers have a "special" relationship complete with puppy dog birthday cards that include compliments such as "you are the best governor ever!" :tard:
 
theacoustician said:
Not true. The founding fathers were very very careful to try and keep state and church separate because they saw the hold that the Catholic church had over most of Europe. Seems people have forgotten that lession.
Which is true, to the extent that they didn't want the Church as an organization to have direct influence on affairs of state, but they were all deeply religious men and believed in a Creator from which the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were given.

I.e. 'God' gave man rights, man did not give man rights.
 
theacoustician said:
Not true. The founding fathers were very very careful to try and keep state and church separate because they saw the hold that the Catholic church had over most of Europe. Seems people have forgotten that lession.

Okay..... then should I say in practical application this country has never had seperation of church and state? Just because the founding fathers were wise enough to write that little detail in doesn't mean the country have ever actually followed it.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
Which is true, to the extent that they didn't want the Church as an organization to have direct influence on affairs of state, but they were all deeply religious men and believed in a Creator from which the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were given.

I.e. 'God' gave man rights, man did not give man rights.
Right, they loved them some God, but they really didn't want it to have any part in their government because they saw from history how the church could slowly creep in and take over (not for the better).
 
Pandora said:
Okay..... then should I say in practical application this country has never had seperation of church and state? Just because the founding fathers were wise enough to write that little detail in doesn't mean the country have ever actually followed it.
Well, until someone got bored, needed a little attention and decided that they could feel smart by pointing out a flaw in the system and making a big deal over something that shouldn't really matter in the first place.