Delaware candidate Christine O'Donnell questions church and state separation

[KenH]

She was questioning whether the phrase "seperation of church and state" was in the 1st amandement.

She was also questioning if the no establishment clause was in the 1st amendment.

 

[targus]

Posted in error

 

[targus]

Government must maintain a neutral attitude toward religion. Also, citizens are allowed the freedom to practice any religion of their choice. And also the government cannot officially recognize or favor any religion over other religions.

Too bad this is not the reality.

The government has a lot of "do nots" when it comes to the free practice of religion.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Too bad this is not the reality.

The government has a lot of "do nots" when it comes to the free practice of religion.

Would you list some for us?

 

[KenH]

The predominate religious faith should be the one dictating to the government

No thanks. That's the way run things in places such as Iran and I have interest in seeing that way done here.

 

[freeatlast]

I believe the concept is there though those exact words are not used.



Government must maintain a neutral attitude toward religion. Also, citizens are allowed the freedom to practice any religion of their choice. And also the government cannot officially recognize or favor any religion over other religions.

Also, no religion should have authority over the government. They can try to influence the government, but not control it. Throughout history very bad things have happened when the church had such controls.

That is neither the constitution nor what is being touted "separation of church and state." What you are proposing is a Godless nation although I do not think that is your intent. One that has no religious leading and yet all religions practices. One that alllows input but ignors it at will. That is what we have today in this country. At no time has the church ever done bad things by controlling the government., The bad things you mention were and are done when godless men and women who claim to do things in the name of the church (God) but in fact do them in their own power.

 

[freeatlast]

No thanks. That's the way run things in places such as Iran and I have interest in seeing that way done here.

Yes you are correct, that can happen when the church does not do its calling and God abondons it like we are seeing in this nation today.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Religion is a broad term and can conjure up many different and wild notions. In the case of Christianity yes it should be practiced in our government. That does not mean that the government sets the standards for the nation, but rather the faith of the Christian's sets the standards for the government.

Which Christians? Would you go by numbers? Then the Catholic Church would be calling the shots as they have far more members than any other group in the US.

By the 2010 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, from which members in the United States are combined with Canadian members, and of the National Council of Churches, the five largest denominations are[11]:

* The Catholic Church, 68,115,001 members
* The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,228,438 members
* The United Methodist Church, 7,853,987 members
* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,974,041 members
* The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity

 

[targus]

Would you list some for us?

There is a lot of preventing of the expression of beliefs and practice of faith on "public property".

 

[Crabtownboy]

There is a lot of preventing of the expression of beliefs and practice of faith on "public property".

Should Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems be allowed such expressions in public?

 

[freeatlast]

The government has a lot of "do nots" when it comes to the free practice of religion.
Would you list some for us?

Without getting into every religious practice there are some.

One man and one woman at a time for marriage.

Laws against animal sacrafice in religious settings

 

[freeatlast]

Which Christians? Would you go by numbers? Then the Catholic Church would be calling the shots as they have far more members than any other group in the US.

I would go by the people and the vote instead of the politicians. But I would not exclude the religious beliefs from being in government. If the true church did what it has been called to then there would be no problem.

 

[Aaron]

O'Donnell was right. She's not ignorant. She's just not savvy.

Crabtown will parrot the party line, and conservatives know the truth. The First Amendment is a limitation on congress, not on the states or the courts.

 

[RAdam]

I believe the concept is there though those exact words are not used.



Government must maintain a neutral attitude toward religion. Also, citizens are allowed the freedom to practice any religion of their choice. And also the government cannot officially recognize or favor any religion over other religions.

Also, no religion should have authority over the government. They can try to influence the government, but not control it. Throughout history very bad things have happened when the church had such controls.

That's not anywhere in the text of the first amendment. It doesn't say that government cannot favor any religion over other religions. It doesn't say government must maintain a neutral attitude toward religion. The text says Congress can make no law concerning religion. You, and others who push this concept of separation of church and state, are reading into the constitution what was never put there by the authors. That amendment did not say the things you claim it does. It simply stated that Congress can make no law concerning religion, either in establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It laid absolutely no rules or bounds on religion itself, only Congress. An institution of religion is not addressed by the First Amendment, only Congress is. And, by the way, individual members of Congress are not addressed, the President is not addressed, the other federal agencies are not addressed, only the body of Congress is addressed and only it's ability to make laws in that subject area are restricted by that amendment. Anything else is reading into the amendment that which doesn't exist in the text.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That's not anywhere in the text of the first amendment. It doesn't say that government cannot favor any religion over other religions. It doesn't say government must maintain a neutral attitude toward religion. The text says Congress can make no law concerning religion. You, and others who push this concept of separation of church and state, are reading into the constitution what was never put there by the authors. That amendment did not say the things you claim it does. It simply stated that Congress can make no law concerning religion, either in establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It laid absolutely no rules or bounds on religion itself, only Congress. An institution of religion is not addressed by the First Amendment, only Congress is. And, by the way, individual members of Congress are not addressed, the President is not addressed, the other federal agencies are not addressed, only the body of Congress is addressed and only it's ability to make laws in that subject area are restricted by that amendment. Anything else is reading into the amendment that which doesn't exist in the text.

I was responding to a request by another person to give my opinion on what separation of church and state should be ... I did not claim that what I posted is in the Constitution in those words.

What would you like to see in the Constitution?

 

[billwald]

>Laws against animal sacrafice in religious settings

Read someplace that Rastafarians can deduct the cost of sacrificial chickens.

 

[Salty]

I have started two new threads about this over all issue:

Chaplains (includes poll)

Were states in violation of the US Constitution?

Doing this so I dont hijack :tonofbricks:

 

[targus]

Should Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems be allowed such expressions in public?

Of course.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Should Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems be allowed such expressions in public?

Absolutely, and they are. The only religion that routinely gets censored is Christianity. Building a mosque near ground zero is protected freedom of religion, but putting a nativity scene or singing a Christmas carol at a school "winter break" celebration is hate speech. Welcome to America.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Religion is a broad term and can conjure up many different and wild notions. In the case of Christianity yes it should be practiced in our government. That does not mean that the government sets the standards for the nation, but rather the faith of the Christian's sets the standards for the government.

Exactly, that is the best post on this thread.

It is not the specific beliefs of any denomination or sect, but the moral standard of the people that sets the standard for the nation. That is why a Christian idea like all of us being equal under the law can be included in America instead of an Islamic idea that separates us into men/women, Muslim/Jew/Other, or any other category. The Christian ideals that founded our country gave us the foundation of our laws and government, but they do so without establishing a state church or religion.

That is exactly what the first amendment says and means.