Excomunicate Harry Reid?

[CaptainTux]

Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. When copying verbatim you are using section 2 of the license which states.....

2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

Plagiarism is defines as (By Dicitionary.com)

n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own [syn: plagiarization, plagiarisation, piracy]

KJV was published in 1611 ans the copyright has expired so it is considered to be what is in the Public Domain and not subject to the same rules except by Great Britain and English teachers.

Quotes which are brief or are acknowledged as quotes do not constitute plagiarism in the traditional legal definition. Things get tricky when defining a brief quote verses a verbose one.

[Traveler]

As far as separation of church and state go, that is where you're wrong. Heck, if giving churches the right to establish their doctrines were all the 1st Amendment were about, they could establish, say, the Lutherans as the official United States Church, let them set there own doctrines, and then proceed to force them on the rest of us. No, the First Amendment, along with Article VI, firmly establish the principle of separation in the Constitution. I would be very interested to see what kind of proof to the contrary you might have to offer, if you care to continue this debate.

Dror

Lets take a look at the 1st Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I do not see anything about separation of church and state - What I see is that there can be no law that interferes with the establishment or practice of religion. As I understand this amendment it limits the influence of government on religion - I see not provision for limiting religion influencing government.

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The provision for "no religious test" does not stand to religious principles but to religious affiliation. For exammple: Just because the bible says thou shalt not kill does not mean that murder cannot be applied as law.

The Traveler

[Dror]

Lets take a look at the 1st Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I do not see anything about separation of church and state - What I see is that there can be no law that interferes with the establishment or practice of religion. As I understand this amendment it limits the influence of government on religion - I see not provision for limiting religion influencing government.

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The provision for "no religious test" does not stand to religious principles but to religious affiliation. For exammple: Just because the bible says thou shalt not kill does not mean that murder cannot be applied as law.

The Traveler

Actually, Traveler, the "no religious test" provision means exactly what it says, "NO religious test." Period. That is, the government of the United States may not use even religious principles as a test of qualification for public office or public trust. The people of the United States, on the other hand, can vote any way they please. If they want to vote for only Presbyterians, they are free to do so. (For that matter, if the voters want only redheads to hold public office, they can vote for only red-haired people if they want!) But the government is never to require any religious test whatsoever. That's the law.

As for separation of church and state, as with most laws, people interpret them differently. The Supreme Court has upheld the "separation" interpretation of the First Amendment. In deciding the constitutionality of various laws, Supreme Court justices often attempt to determine the Founders' "original intent." That is, what were the Founders of the United States trying to accomplish when they wrote and ratified the Constitution? Well, the primary author of the US Constitution, widely regarded as the "Father of the Constitution," was James Madison. He was also largely responsible for both the wording of the First Amendment, its passage, and its later interpretation. Here's what he had to say about separation of church and state:

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects, and the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever." ("Memorial and Remonstrance," 1785)

In other words, if Dubyah can establish Christianity as the State Religion, he could just as easily establish the United Methodist Church as the official United States Church (that's the one he belongs to). Also, it seems to me Mr. Madison would oppose the use of school vouchers to attend religious schools.

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church and state." (March 2, 1819 (emphasis added))

Mr. Madison believed that the "total separation of church and state" not only did not harm religion, but actually helped it!

If you subscribe to the "original intent" school of constititional thought (as many conservative judges claim to do), then separation of church and state is the way to go!

A final word from George Washington: "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."

[Fiannan]

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."

Please remember the context Washington was speaking in. There was a dispute with what is now Libya. The aim Washington was taking was that this should not be seen in the context of centuries old hostilities between the Christians and the Muslims. It's kind of like íf your parents, who are Mormon, tell you not to smoke and go so far as to say that they are not speaking as mormons but merely citing scietific research. Can a kid then say, "Hey, my family is in no way Mormon -- they said so."?

The congress also voted unanamously to endorse Washington's stands. Are we to expect that highly religious members would endorse such a standpoint if interpreted by ACLU blinders today? Doubtful.

If you want to see Washington's actual position on religion and public life please google his Thanksgiving Day Proclaimation. Reads more like a prayer than an official proclaimation.

[Traveler]

Actually, Traveler, the "no religious test" provision means exactly what it says, "NO religious test." Period. That is, the government of the United States may not use even religious principles as a test of qualification for public office or public trust. The people of the United States, on the other hand, can vote any way they please. If they want to vote for only Presbyterians, they are free to do so. (For that matter, if the voters want only redheads to hold public office, they can vote for only red-haired people if they want!) But the government is never to require any religious test whatsoever. That's the law.

As for separation of church and state, as with most laws, people interpret them differently. The Supreme Court has upheld the "separation" interpretation of the First Amendment. In deciding the constitutionality of various laws, Supreme Court justices often attempt to determine the Founders' "original intent." That is, what were the Founders of the United States trying to accomplish when they wrote and ratified the Constitution? Well, the primary author of the US Constitution, widely regarded as the "Father of the Constitution," was James Madison. He was also largely responsible for both the wording of the First Amendment, its passage, and its later interpretation. Here's what he had to say about separation of church and state:

This in nonsense. You appear to say no one with religious affiliation can participate in government or hold office. There has been a change in how the government treats religion during the last 50 years. To illustrate please provide one so-called "religious test" for any public office disqualified prior to 1950.

Now, while you are looking for something that does not exist - answer this question for me. How can the history of Utah be taught in the public schools without a religious bias? In fact my misguided friend you cannot even understand the civil war without realizing religious bias. Even world history cannot be understood without a religious bias - Perhaps efforts yours of separation of church and state and to remove all pretense of religion in education has altered the public education system in the united state from once having been the best in the world to the worse of any industrial nation today. The once honored profession of teacher is now one of the most disrespected professions in our country (at least concerning pay).

In the field of science and engineering when something goes wrong the first thing you consider is what has changed and what effect it has.

Thank you for all your misguided efforts but we were better off without your need for separation of church and state nonsense.

The Traveler

[Dror]

This in nonsense. You appear to say no one with religious affiliation can participate in government or hold office.

Do I appear to say that? If so, it's only because that's the way you interpret it. I certainly didn't say that. The point of having no religious test is not to prevent religious people from holding public office, but rather to allow people of any religion to hold public office. It's what permitted JFK to become president, even though many bigoted Protestants feared he would let his Catholic religion unduly influence his public policy. It's what would allow Mitt Romney to become president (if enough people vote for him), even though many people think he's not a Christian, by virtue of being LDS. The "no religious test" provision assures greater religious and political freedom, not less.

There has been a change in how the government treats religion during the last 50 years. To illustrate please provide one so-called "religious test" for any public office disqualified prior to 1950.

How, exactly (and please provide evidence) has the government changed how it treats religion during the last 50 years?

Now, while you are looking for something that does not exist - answer this question for me. How can the history of Utah be taught in the public schools without a religious bias? In fact my misguided friend you cannot even understand the civil war without realizing religious bias. Even world history cannot be understood without a religious bias - Perhaps efforts yours of separation of church and state and to remove all pretense of religion in education has altered the public education system in the united state from once having been the best in the world to the worse of any industrial nation today. The once honored profession of teacher is now one of the most disrespected professions in our country (at least concerning pay).

Seems like a bit of a stretch to connect low pay for teachers with separation of church and state.

When you say those things cannot be taught without a religious bias, are you saying you think religious bias is good? Are you saying it's impossible simply to describe what happened, historically, without taking sides? Are you saying, for example, that it's impossible to say the Mormons practiced polygamy without making a statement either for or against polygamy? Should we therefore not even try to be unbiased?

If religious bias in the teaching of history is unavoidable, or undesirable, whose religious bias ought we to teach our children? Should teachers in Utah be expected to teach non-LDS children that the LDS Church is true, or at least teach Utah history from a point of view strictly favorable to the LDS Church? Should schoolchildren in my state, including LDS children, be taught history strictly favorable to Evangelical Christians (who, btw, believe we LDS are not Christian)? No, this is precisely what the Founders were trying to avoid.

In the field of science and engineering when something goes wrong the first thing you consider is what has changed and what effect it has.

This is why I like separation of church and state. Separation of church and state has had a positive effect on religion. James Madison thought so, and if you take a good look around you, you'll see that religion is stronger than ever in the U.S. The United States is one of the most religious nations in the Western world. If separation of church and state has, as you seem to claim, increased during the past 50 years, it certainly hasn't hurt religion.

Thank you for all your misguided efforts but we were better off without your need for separation of church and state nonsense.

The Traveler

Traveler, if you like theocracy so much, why don't you travel right on out of the United States to someplace like Iran? Oh wait, you're Christian, so that won't do. Why not move to one of the European countries that have an official Christian state religion? Oddly enough, despite official state sanction, the churches don't seem to actually be doing that well over there. People over there just don't seem to be that religious. Hmmm... Wonder why that is?

As for me, I'll stay right here in the good ol' U.S., with its thoroughly secular government and its "godless Constitution" (God, Christ, and Christianity not even mentioned, anywhere, in the Constitution) that allows me to believe as I wish, and where the vast majority of the rest of the people also believe.

The principle is called "free agency." The United States government, because of the Constitution, has a strict "hands off" policy, when it comes to religion (maybe Dubyah and his cronies will manage to change that, but for now... )--it allows us to believe and practice religion any way we want, as long as we don't violate others' rights. As a result, religion is faring quite well here. Under "godless Communism," the government actively discourages people from believing or practicing religion. In my opinion, when a government officially sponsors any religion, even Christianity, it takes away a measure of our freedom, and therefore only hurts true religion. Two sides of the same coin--either one involves coercion. Read the history books for evidence of the harm caused by church-state entanglements. Century after century after century of bloodshed and oppression. That was the Founders' motivation in separating church from state.

[Traveler]

Do I appear to say that? If so, it's only because that's the way you interpret it. I certainly didn't say that. The point of having no religious test is not to prevent religious people from holding public office, but rather to allow people of any religion to hold public office. It's what permitted JFK to become president, even though many bigoted Protestants feared he would let his Catholic religion unduly influence his public policy. It's what would allow Mitt Romney to become president (if enough people vote for him), even though many people think he's not a Christian, by virtue of being LDS. The "no religious test" provision assures greater religious and political freedom, not less.

Why is the point being brought up? What in the last 100 years has violated your view? Lets look at what has changed? Cities cannot put up signs saying "Marry Christmas", schools cannot sing religious songs (and most or history of music is around religious themes). Public schools cannot have prayers at graduation but they can have pagan cap and gounds. Court house cannot display the 10 commandments but they can display pagan robes on judges, call judges "your honor" and use pagan calendars. They can do almost anything as long as it is not Christian or Jewish. If fact my very blind friend there has not been as single effort to separate any religious thing from government unless it was Christian or Jewish.

You say you believe in Democracy but you will not allow the majority to have a say if it can somehow be tied to religion because you demand separation of church and state. No my friend - the state should have no say in how religion is regarded in society. If the majority wants pagan prayers in schools then it is not democracy to prevent. It is the minority forcing its political views on the majority.

I believe in majority rule. Granted the majority can be wrong but in the history of things the majority rule has never been as half as bad as minority rule. And I see your "separation of Church and State" nothing more than a minority political take over and oppression. I just do not believe in minority oppression for anything. The constitution was intended so a few religious (minority) could not force their religious ideas on the majority. But the anti Democratic liberals that demand their ideas over everybody else has forced the extreme non Democratic separation of Church and State. And it limits freedom it does not expand freedom. The force of the minority always limits freedom in the long run regardless of how it may look for a time.

We can thank citizens like you with the mentality of take control and force our ideas on every body becoming the title of both our political parties. That is dirty politics and it is destroying our country.

The Traveler

[Guest bizabra]

<div class='quotemain'>

Respectfully, I tire of elected leaders who vote y the polls. I vote for a leader. Sometimes that leader has to step outside of the opinion of his or her constituency for the good of the nation and his or her conscience. Sometimes, what the people want is wrong. Sometimes a politician must ignore the will of the people for the good of the people.

Abolishment of slavery

The right of women to vote

Ending segregation

child labor laws

These are issues that required brave leaders to step outside the will of the people and make a stand.

The right of women to vote (BIG MISTAKE)

Let them vote let them work out side the home this is what is killing the american family!!!

BIZ: YEAH! Keep 'em barefoot, and pregnant, IN THE KITCHEN! And keep 'em ignernt, too! Don't want 'em gitting ideyers 'n such!

[Outshined]

BIZ: YEAH! Keep 'em barefoot, and pregnant, IN THE KITCHEN! And keep 'em ignernt, too! Don't want 'em gitting ideyers 'n such!

[Guest bizabra]

Er, whatever happened to separation of church and state?!? I think what Senator Reid did was courageous--he voted his conscience, not just what somebody told him to do. I also happen to agree with his vote, for a number of reasons.

1. Marriage and family law traditionally falls under the jurisdiction of the state governments, not the federal.

2. The "Defense of Marriage Amendment" does not protect marriage between a man and a woman, because:

a. heterosexual marriage is not under attack in the first place (nobody's trying to ban it);

b. far more serious threats to marriage are not addressed at all by the proposed amendment (fornication, adultery, teenage pregnancy, poverty, inadequate health care, poor education, commercialism, violence, etc.)

3. The proposed amendment is blatantly discriminatory--it singles out homosexuals, a tiny minority of the population, and denies them civil liberties the rest of us enjoy.

Like Senator Reid (and presumably y'all), I believe God means marriage to be between a man and a woman, but I also don't believe we should legislate all the commandments. If we're going to try strengthening the family through the power of the state, why don't we pass a constitutional amendment banning adultery, a far more common sin, and one that destroys far more families, than homosexual sex?

This proposed amendment is very hateful toward homosexuals, because it singles them out like that, and it's a rather obvious ploy on the part of the far "right" wing to boost their ratings in the popularity polls and garner more votes. Gay marriage, while I don't condone it, is almost a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned (along with flag burning)--we have far more important things to be focusing on.

Dror

Biz: I can't say it any better. Thank you!

20 years ago the right-wing Moral Majority types said that homosexuals would eventually go for legalized marriage, with the hopes of eventually destorying it. Far-fetched!! Outrageous! They exclaimed. Just stay out of our bedrooms. Today many are saying government should simply get out of the business of marriage all together (i.e. the public institution of marriage should be abolished...destroyed).

BIZ: But, this would not stop religions or persons having religious or personal rituals and then considering themselves "married" and/or in the "eyes of god", if that was important to them. If the STATE got out of the licensing of domestic arrangments altogether, then how would that be a bad thing?

Religions and persons could still continue to sanction marriages as they wish. The union simply would not be state-recognized, and there would be no particular rights or responsibilities that could be imposed or granted by the STATE. Get rid of the contract with the STATE and HOW would that matter to those who were "married" in the manner they believed was proper for them? How would it stop them from "marrying" in the eyes of god? or their community?

I think the STATE has better things to deal with than this entire ritual.

[Dror]

<div class='quotemain'>

Do I appear to say that? If so, it's only because that's the way you interpret it. I certainly didn't say that. The point of having no religious test is not to prevent religious people from holding public office, but rather to allow people of any religion to hold public office. It's what permitted JFK to become president, even though many bigoted Protestants feared he would let his Catholic religion unduly influence his public policy. It's what would allow Mitt Romney to become president (if enough people vote for him), even though many people think he's not a Christian, by virtue of being LDS. The "no religious test" provision assures greater religious and political freedom, not less.

Why is the point being brought up? What in the last 100 years has violated your view? Lets look at what has changed? Cities cannot put up signs saying "Marry Christmas", schools cannot sing religious songs (and most or history of music is around religious themes). Public schools cannot have prayers at graduation but they can have pagan cap and gounds. Court house cannot display the 10 commandments but they can display pagan robes on judges, call judges "your honor" and use pagan calendars. They can do almost anything as long as it is not Christian or Jewish. If fact my very blind friend there has not been as single effort to separate any religious thing from government unless it was Christian or Jewish.

You say you believe in Democracy but you will not allow the majority to have a say if it can somehow be tied to religion because you demand separation of church and state. No my friend - the state should have no say in how religion is regarded in society. If the majority wants pagan prayers in schools then it is not democracy to prevent. It is the minority forcing its political views on the majority.

I believe in majority rule. Granted the majority can be wrong but in the history of things the majority rule has never been as half as bad as minority rule. And I see your "separation of Church and State" nothing more than a minority political take over and oppression. I just do not believe in minority oppression for anything. The constitution was intended so a few religious (minority) could not force their religious ideas on the majority. But the anti Democratic liberals that demand their ideas over everybody else has forced the extreme non Democratic separation of Church and State. And it limits freedom it does not expand freedom. The force of the minority always limits freedom in the long run regardless of how it may look for a time.

We can thank citizens like you with the mentality of take control and force our ideas on every body becoming the title of both our political parties. That is dirty politics and it is destroying our country.

The Traveler

Whoo-eeeh!! I can practically see the steam coming out of your ears!! Why don't we sit down with a nice cup of chamomile tea, quietly sip for a few minutes, and let our heart rate go down?

Aaahhh. I feel much better now. How do you feel?

Now that you've calmed down a bit, how about if you go back and reread my previous posts? You are so completely missing my point that I wonder if you read them carefully in the first place, and I don't feel inclined to repeat myself or to put forward new arguments until you do.

Yes, the majority rules, but in a true democracy, the rights of the minority must also be protected. This is why, for example, the Founders created the Senate, in which all states, both small and large, are equally represented. The small states were afraid the large states would completely dominate the government and ignore their rights, and would not ratify the Constitution unless they had some kind of check on that. This is also the idea behind the Bill of Rights. If majority rule were all that mattered, as long as people retained the right to vote, there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. But the Founders saw the dangers inherent in that, and provided the Bill of Rights specifically to protect individual rights against the majority. The God-given right to worship as we please, even if we worship Beelzebub, is important enough that the Founders felt the need to protect it by writing it into the Constitution. Just because Christianity is not the state religion and your neighbor worships the Earth Mother doesn't have to stop you from worshipping God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ.

Why do you feel the need to force your religion on others in order to practice your own?

Having said that, I do understand your frustration with the prejudice some people seem to exhibit towards Christianity. I have met people, most notably atheists and neopagans and Wiccans, who pride themselves on their "openmindedness" and "tolerance," and yet show strong antipathy towards Christians. Their reasoning: Christianity has a long history of intolerance and oppression. While this is certainly true, it is woefully incomplete. Christianity has also produced a great deal of good fruit. Those who ignore that ignore part of the truth just as surely as do those who ignore the bad stuff. It really ticks me of when I hear neopagans put down Christianity--they're not any better than their bigoted "Christian" counterparts.

HOWEVER, those people are a small minority in this country. The vast majority of Americans are believing Christians, and nobody is oppressing them but themselves (when they sin). I have to laugh when I hear Christians whining about how oppressed they are--what a load of hogwash! They have record church attendance, loads of money, freedom to preach till their tongues fall out, go door-to-door, pray on street corners, sing hymns on the bus (yes, I hear people do that, from time to time), operate their own school systems, home school their kids, run their businesses, have their own TV and radio shows (and stations, too!), own their own publishing houses, freely roam about the country, preach for money, preach hatred, preach love, preach paranoia, preach Jesus, preach Buddha, preach whatever, etc., etc., etc.--and not pay taxes on their not-for-profit operations. Who in the world enjoys more religious freedom than we do? Who in the history of the world? And yet, you get multi-millionaire preachers on their own TV shows complaining about how "oppressed" they are. Oh, give me a break already!!!

And looky here, we are freely discussing religion to our hearts' content right here in this very online forum, without fear of the thought police knocking our doors in. :)

[Traveler]

Why do you feel the need to force your religion on others in order to practice your own?

The term separation of Church and State is a phrase that was non existant 100 years ago. What has religion been doing that anyone would think that a change needed to be made in how religion is dealt with in our country as far as official government standing is concerned? Let me give you some counter examples.

In the state of Washington the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS cannot hold a car wash to raise funds on church property for threat of loosing tax exempt status.

The Boy Scouts of America cannot be supported by any organization associated with the military (government) because of religious principles like believing in G-d - not because of any particular relationship with a religion.

A public school teacher can be fired for saying they believe in G-d (not even stating any religion) but they cannot be fired for saying they believe in homosexual marriage. Even though opposition to homosexual marriage is not a principle of any single religion.

For all you have said about separation of Church and State you have not given a single example of a problem in our society - all you have given is theories of what could be. Not one single actual example of Churches misusing power. I have provided several examples of over use of separation of Church and State and you do not seem to care which leaves me believing you do not believe in the principles of Democracy. And then you said that I am trying to force my religion on others?

You remind me of a man on an elevator I confronted some years ago in Utah for smoking. On an elevator packed with people for Pete sake. The nut case responded by saying, "You ---- Mormons need to realize that you can't force your religion on everybody else." Lucky for me Chris Allan (the head of Utah atheist) came un-glued. That led us to testify before the Utah state Legislature to end smoking in most public places.

My point is that religion has not stepped outside of its role at all to the extent of the "Separation of Church and State" people that are very happy to shove their politics on the rest of the population. In short my friend - it is you that has over stepped freedom in pursuit of a non Democratic ideal called separation of Church and State.

The Traveler

[Fiannan]

BIZ: YEAH! Keep 'em barefoot, and pregnant, IN THE KITCHEN! And keep 'em ignernt, too! Don't want 'em gitting ideyers 'n such!

Has merit, except why not barenaked and pregnant -- if they are good looking? The ignorant part is just plain wrong, then they'd all vote for Democrats.

[BenRaines]

OK, enough good humor. Lets keep it so the kids can read it and not have me be embarrassed.

That was meant to be about the part of voting for Democrats. LOL

Ben Raines

[sgallan]

1. If we're going to have gay marriages, what's next? Polygamy?

2. How would you regulate how many, or under what circumstances?

3. What if people set up group living arrangements for tax benefits, etc.

4. You know, government really shouldn't be in the business of approving or disapproving people's living arrangments, anyway. It ought to just revert to legalizing living partnerships.

5. Yeah, who's the government to say what's moral and what's "living in sin."

I personally think we should go to Sharia law myself.....

[Dror]

Traveler, you said:

The term separation of Church and State is a phrase that was non existant 100 years ago.

Thomas Jefferson said (more than 100 years ago): "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and State." (January 1, 1802)

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, said (also well over 100 years ago): "The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church and state." (March 2, 1819)

The phrase "separation of church and state" not only existed well over 100 years ago, but was the position espoused by the Founders most responsible for the First Amendment and has been the guiding principle behind First Amendment-related Constitutional law since the very beginning. If I remember correctly, I included the James Madison quote in a previous post, and repeat my earlier request: Before you respond to my posts, please read them.

[Dror]

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and state.”

--Thomas Jefferson, January 1, 1802

When I read the Jefferson quote, I immediately thought of Doctrine & Covenants 134, and of Alma 30. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that what Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith wrote should be so similar—they were, after all, inspired by the same God:

“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.”

--D&C 134:4, 7

“Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.

Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.

But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.

For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.”

--Alma 30:7-11

[shanstress70]

I don't have time to read this entire thread, so forgive me if something like this has already been said, but I'm surprised that an LDS person like Traveler would NOT want seperation of church and state. Remember how the Mormon pioneers were supposedly persecuted everywhere they went?

This is the kind of thing that happens when you mix religion and gov't. If Joseph Smith were alive today, do you really think he would want the two mixed?

[prisonchaplain]

I personally think we should go to Sharia law myself.....

Is there no reasonable social consensus on marriage that would protect minorities while honoring the broad moral tradition of this nation? Must we chose between the two extremes of Sharia-type religious courts and Randian ojectivism, which allows no collective social standards at all?

This is the kind of thing that happens when you mix religion and gov't. If Joseph Smith were alive today, do you really think he would want the two mixed?

How does "separation of church and state" get interpreted?

Does it mean all religious candidates are suspect, because they may attempt to infuse their religious doctrine into law?

Does it mean that religious leaders must keep silence about any matter that could be interpreted as being political in nature?

Does it really mean our kids can't pray in school? Can't have "a moment of silence."

Does it mean Bible clubs are out, but alternative living social clubs are in as school activities?

Does it mean abortion cannot be regulated because most of the reasons for doing so are religious in nature?

Does it mean that religious charities can't receive government grants?

Etc. etc.

IMHO Republicans get accused of mixing religion and politics, while Democrats get a "by." For example, if Pat Robertson speaks about social or political matters, the spectre of a religious state is immediately raised, but if politicians speak at African-American churches, well that's okay because that's part of the civil rights historical development, and it shows diversity and a willingness to reach out to minority communities. Although, if it's a Republican, well then, he's using the pastor as an "Uncle Tom."

Bottom-line: The "separation of church and state" argument is usually a red herring meant to put social conservatives on the defensive.

[sgallan]

Is there no reasonable social consensus on marriage that would protect minorities while honoring the broad moral tradition of this nation? Must we chose between the two extremes of Sharia-type religious courts and Randian ojectivism, which allows no collective social standards at all?

The meaning of my tongue in cheek reply is that I view what you were suggesting as potentially extreme as you view Sharia law. I am suggesting that perhaps you view my opinions, values, and morals, much in the same way many Muslims view your opinions, values, and morals.

[Dror]

Is there no reasonable social consensus on marriage that would protect minorities while honoring the broad moral tradition of this nation? Must we chose between the two extremes of Sharia-type religious courts and Randian ojectivism, which allows no collective social standards at all?

I don't know, you tell me! It seems to me a reasonable middle ground is not to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, while at the same time not forcing churches to perform gay marriages. That way the churches don't have to abandon their standards, and the state doesn't get involved in active discrimination.

This is the kind of thing that happens when you mix religion and gov't. If Joseph Smith were alive today, do you really think he would want the two mixed?

How does "separation of church and state" get interpreted?

Does it mean all religious candidates are suspect, because they may attempt to infuse their religious doctrine into law?

What are "religious candidates?" People aspiring to leadership positions in their church? (Sorry about the sarcasm--couldn't help it!) I'm quite happy when political candidates are religious--as long as they don't embark on one of those "I'm holier than the other candidate" campaigns, a la Dubyah claiming God called him to be President, and don't plan to make public policy according to their religious beliefs while ignoring others' beliefs and rights.

Does it mean that religious leaders must keep silence about any matter that could be interpreted as being political in nature?

Where on earth do you folks get ideas like this? Of course religious leaders don't have to keep silent! I laughed out loud when I first heard of Rod Parsley's new book Silent No More--of all people, that man has never been silent! He's got one of the biggest mouths I know! No, my friend, just because we make fun of what certain religious leaders say, or openly disagree with them, doesn't mean we're trying to shut them up. It just means we don't feel the need to be silent any more than they do.

Does it really mean our kids can't pray in school? Can't have "a moment of silence."

There's nothing stopping kids from praying in school. But the teachers ought not make the kids pray, or lead them in prayer, because the type of prayer, or the person/entity/being prayed do might be a different god than the child has been raised by his/her parents to pray to. Is this so difficult to understand?

Does it mean Bible clubs are out, but alternative living social clubs are in as school activities?

Once again no, Bible clubs (or Q'uran clubs, or Book of Mormon clubs) are not out--as long as they are student organizations and no one is forced to attend them.

Does it mean abortion cannot be regulated because most of the reasons for doing so are religious in nature?

Maybe this is one of those cases where we shouldn't force our religious views on others because it would infringe upon their rights. Abortion can easily be presented as a public health issue--in certain cases women can die without an abortion, or have their health really messed up. I'm not going any farther into the abortion debate here than this: the LDS Church makes allowances for abortion in certain circumstances. Many, many "pro-lifers" say abortion should never, ever be an option. The LDS church, therefore, takes a somewhat middle of the road approach to the issue. (I really don't like people using the terms "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because it implies the other side is "anti-life" or "anti-choice." Then again, maybe that's what they're trying to say in this very ugly debate!)

Does it mean that religious charities can't receive government grants?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does mean that. Why should my hard-earned money go to an evangelical, Buddhist, or (*gasp*) Muslim charity? Let me choose what charities to give to!

In his "Memorial and Remonstrance (1785)," James Madison pointed out that "The same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects, and the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever" (emphasis added).

While President, Mr. Madison backed up his belief by vetoing, in 1811, a bill that would have given surplus federal land to a Baptist church in Mississippi. You might say "Big deal," but it does illustrate where President Madison stood on the matter of giving freebies to churches.

IMHO Republicans get accused of mixing religion and politics, while Democrats get a "by." For example, if Pat Robertson speaks about social or political matters, the spectre of a religious state is immediately raised, but if politicians speak at African-American churches, well that's okay because that's part of the civil rights historical development, and it shows diversity and a willingness to reach out to minority communities. Although, if it's a Republican, well then, he's using the pastor as an "Uncle Tom."

Bottom-line: The "separation of church and state" argument is usually a red herring meant to put social conservatives on the defensive.

Well, my friend, that is your opinion, and I disagree with it. I can also make the claim that social conservatives charge liberals with being irreligious and immoral in order to put us on the defensive, but were would that get us?

If separation of church and state is a red herring, it's a red herring that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson successfully managed to get written into the supreme law of the land. I know, I know, that phrase isn't in the Constitution, but the intention certainly is. That is, if the authors' intention matters for anything.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't know, you tell me! It seems to me a reasonable middle ground is not to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, while at the same time not forcing churches to perform gay marriages. That way the churches don't have to abandon their standards, and the state doesn't get involved in active discrimination.

No, I disagree. That is not a reasonable compromise. That's capitulation. That's the extreme that says society has no say about matters that involve consenting adults. Historically, societies have set limited bounderies. One has been that marriage shall be between a man and a woman who are "of age."

The reasonable compromise, imho, is the status quo ante. Government will stay out of the bedrooms of individuals, and will put no religious test to any candidate. On the other hand, if the overwhelming majority of Americans (and Constitutional amendments are so difficult, we're likely talking a 75% supermajority to build the will to pass one) continue to oppose gay marriage, then government should not be compelled to sanction them. On the other hand, again, recognizing the rights of minorities to engage in legal activities, civil unions that ensure at least most legal rights, does seem a reasonable compromise.

I'm quite happy when political candidates are religious--as long as they don't embark on one of those "I'm holier than the other candidate" campaigns, a la Dubyah claiming God called him to be President, and don't plan to make public policy according to their religious beliefs while ignoring others' beliefs and rights.

This is what one radio commentator calls a "but monkey." The classic, "Oh you're right, BUT..." In this case, I'm right, BUT those candidates with religious leanings are indeed suspect. Let us make sure they don't ..." I say candidates run on what they believe, and we vote them in or out based on that. If Bush actually said God called him to run, then people of faith will have to discern if that's so, and those that are not will have to decide if he's dangerous, or whether it matters.

Where on earth do you folks get ideas like this? Of course religious leaders don't have to keep silent! I laughed out loud when I first heard of Rod Parsley's new book Silent No More--of all people, that man has never been silent! He's got one of the biggest mouths I know! No, my friend, just because we make fun of what certain religious leaders say, or openly disagree with them, doesn't mean we're trying to shut them up. It just means we don't feel the need to be silent any more than they do.

Quick history lesson: Up through the mid-1970s most evangelicals and fundamentalists askewed politics as "dirty" "worldly" and something best left alone. The abortion decision of 1972 scandalized many of us, and led to some serious rethinking. Out of this was born the Moral Majority, and later the Christian Coalition. So, yes, 'we' were silent for quite some time. About this time, liberals starting talking the "separation of church and state" talk, and argued that religious leaders should be quiet. The IRS began revoking tax-exempt status from churches that advocated candidates, and, as late as Fall 2002 we had a local school district superintendent saying he saw no difference between Al Quaida and the Christian Coalition, since both were trying to set up theocracies! So, laugh all you want, social conservatives have definitely come to understand that "separation of church and state" is a legal sledge hammer meant to be used on us.

Maybe this is one of those cases where we shouldn't force our religious views on others because it would infringe upon their rights. Abortion can easily be presented as a public health issue--in certain cases women can die without an abortion, or have their health really messed up. I'm not going any farther into the abortion debate here than this: the LDS Church makes allowances for abortion in certain circumstances. Many, many "pro-lifers" say abortion should never, ever be an option. The LDS church, therefore, takes a somewhat middle of the road approach to the issue. (I really don't like people using the terms "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because it implies the other side is "anti-life" or "anti-choice." Then again, maybe that's what they're trying to say in this very ugly debate!)

Bottom-line: Society has the right to set minimal community standards, and it matters not what those standards are grounded in. Some have argued that American liberty ideals are grounded in religious thinking! So, if society comes to a consensus that the default understanding of when life begins, sans absolute scientific certainty, is at conception, than that can be the legitimate law of the land.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does mean that. Why should my hard-earned money go to an evangelical, Buddhist, or (*gasp*) Muslim charity? Let me choose what charities to give to!

So, when it comes to soup kitchens, only atheist groups may apply? Oh, agnostics are okay too. Just not groups with religious affiliations?

Well, my friend, that is your opinion, and I disagree with it. I can also make the claim that social conservatives charge liberals with being irreligious and immoral in order to put us on the defensive, but were would that get us?

Funny, haven't seen Republicans do that. Pollsters and pundits and demographers paint the red state/blue state maps, and point out differences in church attendence, but nobody is using the religious affiliations (or lack there of) to silence or badger them into silence. On the other hand, conservatives are immediately accused of trying to set up Sharia courts and the like, because of their religious connections.

If separation of church and state is a red herring, it's a red herring that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson successfully managed to get written into the supreme law of the land. I know, I know, that phrase isn't in the Constitution, but the intention certainly is. That is, if the authors' intention matters for anything.

I don't disagree that the notion that government should not interfere with religion is in the laws of our land. However, the judges are wrong when the intimate that the founding fathers meant to restrain churches from vocalizing (or in the ancient tradition, prophesying) to Caesar.

[sgallan]

(and Constitutional amendments are so difficult, we're likely talking a 75% supermajority to build the will to pass one)

As it should be. Even though the numbers of people who oppse gay marraige seem to average out at about 55-40 or so (polls are all over the place dependent on the wording and so on), the people who oppose ammending the constitution on such matters is usually a plurality, or within the margin of error of being a plurality. The consitution is important. People generally don't take ammending it lightly. Even something like desecrating the flag, which on the surface seems to be a pretty easy one to pass, doesn't pass ammendment must.

Of the many amazing things the founding fathers did, making the constitution so hard to ammend may have been among the most important. Majorities have been known to take advantage of minorities in terrible ways. But in this hodge podge nation of immigrants and nationalities, getting 75% can often forestall such things being written into the constitution.

[prisonchaplain]

(and Constitutional amendments are so difficult, we're likely talking a 75% supermajority to build the will to pass one)

As it should be.

Another milestone at ldstalk. I agree with Sgallon 100% on this. It should be extremely difficult to pass Constitutional amendments, so that if they do pass the consensus will be near-universal.

BTW, this difficult to surmount obstacle has kept most of the "religious right" agenda from passing, and I say "Amen, praise God." In order for restrictions on abortion, or a return to some type of prayer in schools, or a clearly defined limitation on what marriage is to have meaning there must be tremendous consensus. If social activists (conservatives or liberals) win at legislation, but don't win hearts, they haven't won. If it was otherwise, why would Planned Parenthood continue to be nervouse 35 years after Roe v. Wade? They won the legal battle, but have yet to win the hearts of society.

[Traveler]

I don't have time to read this entire thread, so forgive me if something like this has already been said, but I'm surprised that an LDS person like Traveler would NOT want seperation of church and state. Remember how the Mormon pioneers were supposedly persecuted everywhere they went?

This is the kind of thing that happens when you mix religion and gov't. If Joseph Smith were alive today, do you really think he would want the two mixed?

Thank you for at least reading some of my post. In reality my friend shanstress70 - what you are suggesting (persecution) is what happens when true religion has no expression in government. Religion inspired of G-d would do no such thing but false religion (by any name including non-religion) teaches that it is desirable to persecute others by any number of means.

The Traveler