I could almost put this in the BBQ pitt because I am being very critical but I want to try to keep the discussion more civil than that. We are hearing conversation, possibly related to the Hobby Lobby decision, hearing conversation about “sincerely held religious beliefs” and opposition to SSM on biblical grounds. Well, in a country with separation of church and state why is that even a factor in the conversation???
Because “separation of church and state” is a (vaguely worded) concept that has no actual force in law and the issues coming forth have to do with how to reconcile that (vaguely worded) concept with actual law.
The First Amendment specifies:
“Congress” has been expanded through the Fourteenth Amendment and various judicial rulings to mean “the government.”
The fights tend to be in regard to whether the government is making a law “respecting the establishment of religion” in contrast or conflict with “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Treating the (vaguely worded) phrase “separation of church and state” as an actual law when people do not even agree on its meaning leads to conflict.
You would like the phrase to mean that no person can have an influence on legal matters by appealing to their religious beliefs. Others would prefer to see that phrase mean that they should be able to do whatever their religious beliefs dictate without any interference by the government.
In addition, the US has a long tradition of legislation based on enforcing Judeo-Christian morality. Blue laws and established churches date back to the founding of the United States. Since judges generally look to established precedent and practice, it should be no surprise that they are willing to find a role for religion in public life.
In the end, I think this line of reasoning will fail due to there being all kinds of vile things, through the years, that the religious have maintained as ‘a dictate of their faith’. Everything from being able to beat your wife, to keeping slaves, to prohibiting inter racial marriage.
It it were allowed to be interpreted the way Hobby Looby wants, what’s to stop Muslims from demanding female circumcision, or the stoning of their adulterous women? And if the response is, “Well they can’t over ride the law of the land!” Then it needs to be pointed out that access to abortion, birth control, and gay marriage ARE the law of the land.
There would have to be some justification beyond, “Well I interpret it to mean…”, at the very least.
Yes, but I’m pretty sure most legal scholars think it means no person can have an influence on legal matters by appealing to their religious beliefs and that the people who think it means that they should be able to do whatever their religious beliefs dictate without any interference by the government, that group, would be christians and not legal scholars.
Well, obviously, the blue laws were in direct contradiction to the concept of separation of church and state. So that is one precedence we should reject instead of using to further similar measures.
We are free to believe what we will, we are (mostly) free to speak what our beliefs are, but we do not have the right to practice our beliefs.
I can’t speak for all Christian churches in the land, but when I was 13 years old receiving communion in a Methodist Church, I was given grape juice, not wine. It was illegal to serve an under-aged person alcoholic beverages. Belief is free, speech is free, but behavior is regulated.
Respectfully, you are wrong. That’s not what “separation of Church and State” means.
yeah, to christian fundamentalists, it is most definitely not what it means. but the words themself, the very concept, of sepration, indicate that there should be
[Church]<<<<<… SEPARATION… >>>>>[State]
what you want is a one way street.
You think I’m a Christian Fundamentalist? :dubious:
Anyway your claim that “Yes, but I’m pretty sure most legal scholars think it means no person can have an influence on legal matters by appealing to their religious beliefs” is simply false.
Lots of politicians and public figures have appealed to religious beliefs to “have an influence on legal matters”. I’m reasonably sure you know who Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King were.
Actually, the phrase was coined by Jefferson agreeing with a group of Baptists that he did not believe that they should be subject to state rules imposed by Congregationalists (or whichever group arose from Puritanism).
His phrase, however, is a (vague) ideal that has no explicit meaning and that has never been enshrined in law. (Even when it has been quoted in SCOTUS decisions, the various justices have given it different meanings.)
What Ibn Warraq wants has not yet been displayed in this thread.
You have taken a particular view of the phrase and imposed a meaning on it. He has pointed out that your interpretation is not universal.
And, I will re-iterate that I will agree with him to this extent, at least: the phrase is vague enough to be true, but it is neither as clear in meaning nor as absolute in meaning as you would like it to be.
Why are you so sure about this? How many legal scholars have said that no person can have an influence on legal matters by appealing to their religious beliefs?
Right, I have imposed the meaning on the word “separation” that the dictionary imposes.
What exactly are you referring to here? When did Hobby Lobby say anything about female circumcision or the stoning of adulterous women?
How many? I’m sure many have. I’m sure the majority of those are promoting a religious bias. There is only one logical, straightforward interpretation of the word “separate”.
If you try to go all “dictionary” on this discussion, you will fail to persuade many people. The phrase has been in circulation for 213 years with rather few people holding your position. And, as I have already noted, it is not actually included in the Constitution or Law, so claiming that the U.S. “has separation of church and state” based on a private letter that was not an official document and which does not appear in the Constitution or the enacted laws of the U.S. means that your interpretation is nothing more than that–your interpretation.
You’re sure of a lot of things that are untrue.
First of all, as others have already explained, the USA does not have any law with the words “separation of church and state”. You may wish that it did, but it does not.
Second, I’m unaware of these many legal scholars you’re referencing. Have you ever actually read any scholarly books or articles on,this topic? Plainly there are many examples, some already listed, in which religious beliefs influence law.
This is an incredible statement – not only is the Constitution part of the body of U.S. law and in fact supreme over other parts, but there are any number of “actual laws” implementing the principle.
Actually when I google “consensus separation of church and state” the results mainly come from biased sources on both sides of the debate. Do you have any proof the consensus is on one side or the other or are you just going to repeat that some legal experts claim… if I’m wrong, if the consensus of legal opinion is actually that the separation of church and state is a one way street… well, I’d be quite interested in seeing a source that claims that is the consensus legal opinion.
There’s not any serious legal debate over the meaning of “separation,” though there are always changing interpretations of what is and is not a religious belief. There are also right-wingers who insist that, because the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the whole concept is invalid; this is about as legally meaningful as the fact that the exact words “don’t shoot people” aren’t in the criminal code, and isn’t taken seriously by neutral parties.