That's in the first amendment?

[aurik]

First amendment religion clause has nothing to do with persecution and everything to do with preventing establishment, official or otherwise.

[Atreides]

YES BUT IF YOU TRULY KNEW WHAT IT MEANT YOU WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

First amendment religion clause has nothing to do with persecution and everything to do with preventing establishment, official or otherwise.

What's the purpose of the clause it wasn't to prevent persecution? I don't think decided to put it in the constitution just for the hell of it.

[Correction]

What's the purpose of the clause it wasn't to prevent persecution?

Establishing official state religions is done at the expense (read: persecution) of religions that exist in that nation without official establishment. How are you not getting this.

[Byrthnoth]

It's pretty easy to see it as a direct commentary on England (creation of a state religion) and the rest of Europe (religious intolerance). It was entirely necessary for the creation of a country with so many different religious factions, many of whom had fled to the US to avoid prosecution in their own intolerant countries. I'd also be unsurprised to learn that was the law's original intent, and "Separation of Church and state" was basically Jefferson's administrative guide. If you're running a government with very religious members and constituents, you can't be seen favoring one faction over the other or you risk breaking up your budding democracy. Thus Jefferson laid down separation of church and state. Is it incredibly relevant in current times? No, I don't think we're "making Christmas a government holiday" away from breaking up the USA.

However, it seems dumb and unproductive to officially endorse one group's fairytales over another, even if you're endorsing the fairytales of the majority. If someone wanted to make decisions based on their "Christian Values," I'd hope they paid as much attention to the bible's anti-poverty leanings as its anti-abortion and anti-gay leanings. People (including many churches in the USA) fixate on the hot items while ignoring the overall message of the bible. Top priority for a true Christian politician would be to globally eradicate poverty. There's nothing in the Bible about only affecting change for your constituents or congregation. You're supposed to help everyone you can. People get side-tracked on minor issues or issues with outdated logic while ignoring parts of the Bible that still represent real social issues.

I don't give a shit if men are having sex with men, and if God gave a shit I'm sure he'd smite them like Sodom and Gomorrah. A true believer who thinks God's up for some smiting would do well to avoid New York and San Fransisco.
Abortions were avoided way back when because childhood mortality was so high. You give birth to 6 babies, maybe you get 3 that mature to age 18. One or two of them is going to be a girl, who may die during childbirth. Now you're down to two. Equity. Societies would die out if they didn't keep birth rates up, and abortions don't help keep birth rates up.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Establishing official state religions is done at the expense (read: persecution) of religions that exist in that nation without official establishment. How are you not getting this.

How did you not get that's what I said.

[Correction]

How did you not get that's what I said.

Then why are you arguing that it's not clear that the 1st Amendment is a fundamental separation of church and state?

[aurik]

What's the purpose of the clause it wasn't to prevent persecution? I don't think decided to put it in the constitution just for the hell of it.

The purpose of the clause is to prevent the government from favoring any one religion over another or over no religion. Persecution is only one (very small) aspect of this.

[zoobernut]

I think Swampy that the difference or disconnect here is the interpretation of the word establishment. In your head the 1st amendment is stopping the government from establishing an official religion of the country. If you consider the word establishment as meaning an entity of religion it shifts the meaning of the amendment slightly. What I mean is establishment could be in the past or present tense and this does change the meaning of the amendment. Most people read the word establishment as it is in the past tense which then it is pretty clear that the amendment says that Congress shall not make any law that respects or favors one religion over another. If you read it in the present tense then it means congress will not establish an official religion.

[Demosthenes11]

How did you not get that's what I said.

and how do you not get from that to "separation of church and state"

[Ksandra]

I have always felt that the first amendment needed to be rewritten. I actually agree with swampy that if you strictly look at the words, it is protecting religions and their practices. I don't think that laws should be dependent on what is studied about the reasons behind it. Especially when it comes to our constitution.


This is not to say I am disagreeing that Jefferson wanted separation of church and state, just that it's no wonder why there is always a debate and because it's not actually written into the constituion it is going to be open to interpretation.

[Correction]

I actually agree with swampy that if you strictly look at the words, it is protecting religions and their practices.

...because?

Think it through.

[Ksandra]

...because?

Think it through.

you didn't read my whole post.

I'm saying take the wording at face value. without knowledge of Jefferson's beliefs, it is saying the state won't meddle in religion not that religion shouldn't meddle in state affairs

[Correction]

you didn't read my whole post.

I'm saying take the wording at face value. without knowledge of Jefferson's beliefs, it is saying the state won't meddle in religion not that religion shouldn't meddle in state affairs

Sounds like you're doing everything to keep from using the word 'separation.'

[zoobernut]

you didn't read my whole post.

I'm saying take the wording at face value. without knowledge of Jefferson's beliefs, it is saying the state won't meddle in religion not that religion shouldn't meddle in state affairs

And you didn't read my post. Even taking the words at "face value" you still have to interpret them as you read. If you consider the word establishment in two different ways then you can have two different interpretations of the 1st amendment.

[aurik]

The main disagreement is on the definition of establishment. When scoped narrowly, it means simply that the government cannot bless a religion as official (see: Church of England), but is not restricted from further supporting such a religion. Generally, the courts have opined that the restriction of establishment is not so narrow as to only apply to "official" establishment and also applies to unofficial establishment, for example a government bill requiring public schools to include specific religious doctrines in their curriculum.

[Ksandra]

And you didn't read my post. Even taking the words at "face value" you still have to interpret them as you read. If you consider the word establishment in two different ways then you can have two different interpretations of the 1st amendment.

except I was just making a comment about how I thought the wording needs to change. I wasn't talking to you specifically >.>;

infcact that post would just further show I was agreeing with you on the fact it's up to interpretation hence the problem...

[Demosthenes11]

you didn't read my whole post.

I'm saying take the wording at face value. without knowledge of Jefferson's beliefs, it is saying the state won't meddle in religion not that religion shouldn't meddle in state affairs

there are a thousand cases where the courts translate the words in the constitution and interpret them to something a little more abstract. Right to privacy, for example. The words don't need to be spelled out, you just need to apply logic lol

[aurik]

Also there is absolutely no restriction on religion meddling in state affairs. Church/religious groups can, for example, donate to political causes, rally to support political candidates, and political officeholders are not forbidden to express and practice their personal religious views. That's not really the discussion here, though.

[Ksandra]

there are a thousand cases where the courts translate the words in the constitution and interpret them to something a little more abstract. Right to privacy, for example. The words don't need to be spelled out, you just need to apply logic lol

there's a difference here though on what "makes sense" vs. "what the writer wanted"

Is it really a huge harm in actually putting the phrase in? considering it has been something the religious fanatics have been arguing as a loophole for a long time?


You people act like I think we shouldn't have it, I'm just saying it's vague and that I think it would benefit us in a lot of ways if the phrase was actually put in.