*Do you support the separation of church and state?*
You mean this one....
First Amendment
The one that says *nothing* about separation of church and state* and the mockery that our politicians have made of it?
I'm all for it.
34 comments
Actually, you 'tard, it does say something about the separation of church and state. Right about where it reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Just because something doesn't literally say "there is a separation of church and state" that doesn't make it any less established or meaningful.
For example, when I say "Please be quiet and educate yourself before making assertions and until then leave the forum" what I'm really saying is "TITS OR GTFO!"
Try reading the Constitution, what the meaning of it is, instead of trying to put your friggin Fundie spin on it, you moron!
I'm not even an American but I am a lawyer in England and the plain, simple, rules of construction inherited from us, that the lawyers who framed your Constitution were intimately familiar with, lead me to think that on its face this clause means, in simple terms, that there is a separation of church and state.
Realize that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the foundations for America wrote in a language we don't use today.
Analyze the actual text before you speak...or type, whichever method you communicate best with.
It's funny, in Norway, we have a state church (lutheran christian), and the people who want church and state separated the most, are the christians. They dislike the fact that the state can interfere in their election of bishops etc. Our christians are more sensible than yours ;p
Hence the many additional points in the constitution and other edicts of goverment to reinforce seperation of church and law.
They knew that Christians would try and dodge the reality by twisting words and saying this doesn't mean that.
How come we haven't seen a Fundie word-redefinition dictionary yet? (this craps been going on for hundreds of years now) Because they want to change the meaning anytime they think it suits their purpose.
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 & State .
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802
Jefferson apparently considered the two to be synonymous.
You see, when it says that it will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, it means that it will have nothing to do with religious institutions. That's the separation. When it does make laws, then it's not separate anymore and the Constitution is violated.
Although, honestly, I'm surprised that Fundies don't try and read it another way more.
Somebody who hasn't studied law, but likes to think they're an expert on it. When the SCOTUS looks at the Amendments to rule in a strict originalist sense, they look at what the Framers wrote about the Amendment, meaning they go to the Federalist papers and the private papers of people like JEFFERSON - who said there should be 'a high wall of separation' between church and state!!! Dumbasses.
(I like writing SCOTUS, it makes me giggle.)
One overlooked fact about the word "establishment" reveals the genius of the writers of the Constitution-
The word "establishment" can be used as a noun or a verb.
Establishment (n) - the physical institution of a group or entity.
Establishment (v) - the act of establishing or forming.
So, the Constitution specifically prohibits the government from either forming a state religion or supporting one that already exists.
I personally think that the tax laws that exempt a church from having to pay land taxes is unconstitutional. The fact that the government doesn't make churches pay taxes implies that the government supports or "respects" a church by allowing such exemptions. How long would megachurches last when they are held accountable for their land tax liabilities?
And I suppose that "Sabra" would support my First Amendment right to hang a poster which says, "No religion has any evidence to support it" in every classroom in America? No?
How about we stick with slogans you recognize like, "forgive them their trespasses", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "judge not..." etc? Still no?
Then you, "Sabra", are a narrow minded, slow witted, hypocrite.
This reminds me of a certain Tax Protestor by the name of Irwin Schiff.
He insisted there was no law that made him liable for income tax. When someone pointed out that Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code began with the words "There is hereby imposed a tax on all persons whose taxable income is larger than...", he retorted that it didn't actually use the WORD "liable."
James Madison wrote the second amendment.
Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government.
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
What the fuck do you people miss in that?
Y'know, I really don't get why you think the KJB is the definitive one because it's in English when you really refuse to accept the meaning of English words. It's almost like you want to misrepresent the entire language and Bible and laws so you can make up anything at a whim which is,,,, oh wait,,, nevermind Chevy.
@Mageapprentice
"I personally think that the tax laws that exempt a church from having to pay land taxes is unconstitutional. The fact that the government doesn't make churches pay taxes implies that the government supports or "respects" a church by allowing such exemptions. How long would megachurches last when they are held accountable for their land tax liabilities?"
You're only right. This tax free status exist in Canada too and I've only reasoned one way this, even with Americas really strongly worded objection to supporting churchs in their laws, is enacted.
The parishioners pay income, property or product taxes already, so since they support the churchs they've (wrongly) decided that money would be double taxed.
It's in the end wrong to even say Churchs or Billionaires or corporations don't pay taxes in a different way. Everyone else pays their taxes. This is why it's wrong,, in Canada we're approaching a 70% non church affiliated population yet we all pay for their support and massive land holdings. Worse we pound billions into church upkeep subsidies as does America.
In the entire western world in fact non-believers have for a long time now been forced to support the Christian church. This needs to stop everywhere. Like Opera, Ballet, Hockey or lawn bowling, if you can't support it with people who give a shit maybe it should die out.
“The one that says *nothing* about separation of church and state*”
"and the mockery that our politicians have made of it?”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
