Is there truly a separation of church and state? [changed title]

[Priam]

*Originally posted by CBCD *
**In America, we are guaranteed freedom OF religion, which is not necessarily the same thing as freedom FROM religion. **

Ahh how lovely to see this yet floats around. In fact, on a personal level, it is. If Joe Blow A has the right to be a Hindu in the United States without having his worship or customs infringed because of it, then Joe Blow B has the right to have no worship or religious customs. Just as the number system has zero in it, so atheism has a place under the protection of the Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof.

The part in italics means Congress could not make a law a la the Boy Scouts saying “We don’t care what you believe but you have to believe in something”. Thats still making a law respecting an establishment of religion and, thus, unconstitutional.

[yguy]

*Originally posted by Apos *
Er, it’s working right now. The fact that there are one or two numbskulls who don’t get it and occasionally make a big fuss over it doesn’t mean that it isn’t working just great.

Which numbskulls did you have in mind?

Hmm, well the primary author of the first amendment didn’t agree with you on that one.

If you are thinking of the Danbury Baptist letter, I challenge you to cite any part of it which contradicts me in this.

But regardless, that’s not what I’m saying: as it currently stands, the tax exempt status exists because churches are supposed to be churches, not for profit businesses or PACs.

I will grant you that any business posing as a church ought not have tax exempt status, but I don’t see how political action makes a church any less a church.

What the heck are you talking about? What does that have to do with the overwhelming success of religious practice here in the U.S., your insults against it to the contrary?

Obviously you and I have different ideas about what constitutes success.

[Ms2001]

If anyone is finding yguy’s posts a little illogical or evasive, you might want to visit his Pit thread.

[E-Sabbath]

It’s okay. He’s not a christian. He said so. Or did he?

[Abbynormalguy]

I know I’m jumping into this argument late in the game, but I wanted to add my two cents nonetheless. My apologies to anyone who has already said some of the stuff I’m about to say. (I just skimmed over the posts, not read them in-depth).
Here goes…

The Constitution has two religious clauses: free exercise and establishment; the free exercise clause means that, provided you do not infringe upon anyone else’s rights, you can freely practice your religion (this means that we can’t sacrifice virgins to the volcano god, unfortunately).

The Establishment clause implies that the government cannot support any particular church (at the time of the Revolution, and I think even until the late 1800s, there were state-sponsored churches that were completely kosher). Therefore, there cannot be an official church of the United States (I think the historical background is pretty obvious).

Now, how do these two clauses come into play in this question? Take the “10 Commandments Judge” as a case study. The government, federal, state or local, cannot force him to stop practicing his religion in his private life. He calls himself a “good upstanding Christian” and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as he keeps it in his private life.

At the same time, he is a government employee. By placing the 10 Commandments in the courthouse, he implies that the government supports Judeo-Christian theological and philosophical beliefs (whether or not this is true is for another thread). While, granted 99.99999999999% of people in the Bible Belt are Christian in one way, shape or form (and many of the rest are Jewish), what happens to that one Buddhist or Hindu, or the guy that worships Jeff, the God of Biscuits and Simon, the God of Hairdos (whoever gets the reference gets a cookie)? When he/she goes to court, they will feel that there is an implication here that the court may be impartial because of this overt profession of faith.

Our first reaction is “to hell with that one person!” After all, isn’t the overwhelming majority of the people in the state of a Judeo-Christian background? However, another philosophy that the country was founded upon, that is not anywhere in the Constitution, is the idea of “e pluribus unum” which translate as “out of many, one.” This means that there has to be a balance between the needs/wants of the many and those of the few (it’s right above the eagle’s head on our quarters, for those who are interested).

So how do we balance the desires of the many and the few in terms of the religious clauses mentioned above? The easiest way, and the way that I would think that many 1920s liberals would argue, is that there should be no form of religious profession in a government-owned building. (To this effect, I also think that they should get rid of swearing court oaths on a bible altogether, and make people simply affirm, but again, that’s another thead).

If you read this entire message, give yourself a pat on the back.

“Sabre is theatre, foil is art, epee is truth.” ~unknown