Prager University: "Separation of Church & State"

There are some very weak arguments:
- Of course, the founding fathers were religious (as it's being said at minute 3:00), including Jefferson. Thus their ethics were built on or supported by their religious beliefs. But from their European experiences they knew very well that interference of the state in religious matters would cause trouble.
- At 3:39 he quotes O'Douglas that the American institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. I don't know whether this is still the view of Supreme Court judges today. Anyway, the illustration of a Christian church is just propaganda. And what do you do with atheists? Aren't they part of the American people?
- What does bad behavior in school have to do with decline of religion?
- "Crime rates rose". It's simply not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

What they knew is that there shouldn't be a state religion (i.e. like the Church of England). Not that there should actually be a "wall" or "separation" of church and state.



What the Constitution actually says, as written by those who actually wrote it, is what matters. Not necessarily what future judges think. I'm not sure what you mean by "the illustration of a Christian church is just propaganda," but this nation has always been a Christian nation in the sense that most of it's citizens have always been Christian.



Nobody is forcing them to believe or worship. But that doesn't mean they're free from being surrounded by religion or believing the false notion that there is a "wall" or "separation" between church and state.



It's one example of the decline of mores in society, which has coincided with the decline in religious observance.

Googled Prager University. From a subsequent wiki-walk I learned that Adam Carolla is a bit of a dickhead.

You learn something new every day.

We don't know what they really thought. Of course, they had no idea of modern American society. So they referred to what they knew. At their times there were only 1.6 % Catholics. Few Jews. And I wonder if you could find a Muslim, a Buddhist. Atheists were rare.
Eastman fails to prove the point that the founding fathers did not want a separation between church and state. There are only few documents. Jefferson's letter is just one.





The Constitution is more than its words. It has to be interpreted. That's why there's a Supreme Court. Anyway, Eastman is the one who quotes a "future judge".
What I mean by "the illustration of a Christian Church" is the illustration in the video. True, the majority have been Christian. What if that changes one day?



Nobody is forcing them to believe or worship. But that doesn't mean they're free from being surrounded by religion or believing the false notion that there is a "wall" or "separation" between church and state.


Even if there's a coincidence of the two. I don't see why one thing has to do with the other.
And what do you say about his lie about the crime rates?

Prager university? Are you kidding me? Next thing you're going to post a video from patriot bible university talking about the evils of homosexuality

Never mind the name of the place it came from...That is a cheap shot,

Tell us what do you disagree with within the piece?

My basic disagreement is that you don't need religion to have a moral society. Religion does not belong in public schools, nor does it need to be in politics. As far as going to church and choosing a religion that is a right every American has. But I think it's a bit too far to say America is a "Christian nation". If we are a Christian nation than we would follow everything the bible and god says. This would include genocide, stoning our children, and all sorts of random rules that dont belong in a modern society. Our government structure and rights are more based on England's magna carta and the enlightenment than Christianity. Religion has been used to commit atrocities and crimes for decades. Iran lives under religious law, ask them how they're doing.

I don't object to Christianity, nor people who follow it. My objection is people who carry it to the extreme and use it to manipulate and hurt others. I say this meaning every word: religion has nothing to do with this so called fictitious decline in American society and values. If Christianity were used as a foundation for political decisions and in the business world we'd be back in the dark ages

And Ivy and Fathersson, before you try fobbing it all off on Islam, look up Scott Lively and the Uganda connection.

Hold On there- BEFORE YOU go running on and on acusing someone of doing something, please tell me what your post has to do with THIS thread?

"Separation of Church & State"
This my friend is your 2nd bullshit post in this thread.

Just preempting a talking point I know someone will bring up eventually.

But on the topic, so I don't have to make anyone any ad revenue, how does the video explain away Jefferson himself noting the 1st amendment creating a "wall of separation"?

If you don't believe that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, then you've been living under a rock. And I can't help but notice that when citing examples of Christianity, you went right to "genocide and "stoning our children." You didn't mention any of the good. But I guess you just can't help yourself.



^^^
You say this.


^^^
And then you post this.

Well make up your fucking mind. Why is it that every time---EVERY FUCKING TIME---you post your contempt for religion, it's Christianity you use as the example?

I can't help but notice how much you plead for tolerance where gay marriage is concerned---and you know I agree with you there. But when it come to Christianity, you refuse to show the very same tolerance you ask for when you get up on your soapbox about your own cause.

Now I don't agree with half of Ivy's politics. Maybe less than half. But what's right is right. When you can't shake the man's faith, you resort to throwing blanket statements at the Christian faith. Bringing up medieval examples like "stoning" and "genocide" to make your point. It's hypocritical, and in its own way it's just as hateful as anything the right wing evangelists say (and God only knows I'm not a fan of theirs).

But I'm done with this thread. And I'm done with you.

That place is just for gays

What the f*@k have you put up your nose? Your Brain Cells must be fried!

FS its up his nose and up his ass also.

Yeah DonteMasso Monday Morning Public Defender at his best !!

In trying to make a case that "God" has been in decline in public life, he pointedly left out that, on June 14, 1954, Congress inserted "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"In God We Trust" is on our currency, in our courtrooms and our government buildings. Every session of the House and the Senate opens with a prayer, and probably every state and municipal legislature, too. All religious institutions get tax breaks from every taxing entity. Christmas is a national holiday, even though it is nominally a Christian event.

The Founding Fathers were primarily concerned that the new United States not establish a state religion, as the Church of England was, and still is, in their ancestral home. They never intended that God be absent from public life, or that religious practice be banned in America. This video is much ado about nothing. And, by overlooking "under God," by falsely stating that crime rates are going up, and by trying to combine that phony observation with school behavior, divorce, out of wedlock births, etc., it just weakens its case.

America has more churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other religious institutions than any other nation. It got that way because we cherish religious freedom and have enshrined it in our Constitution. What's the problem??

Pizzaboy above said it better than I could.

Also notice how I said this country has always been a Christian nation in the sense that most of it's citizens have always been Christian.

As for Dennis Prager, I would highly recommend him and his radio show to anyone, conservatives or liberals. He isn't a big mouth hack like Rush, Hannity, etc. The guy is extremely intelligent and well spoken. Even a lot of liberals listen to him, even though they may not agree with him often.

Eastman offers but a compact collection of common canards.

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, and only after concluding its analysis did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion.

Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

If you want church and state together, you would probably like what's happening in Russia and Georgia (country, not state) where those governments are further leaning more and more on the religious orthodox institutions to stay in power.

Its why Moscow is currently going on the offense against LDS in that country (all 5 of them) because they're "CIA Agents," which is amazingly still the same card used for the last 70 years against anybody they don't like.

And then you get incidents like this:



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/world/europe/gay-rights-rally-is-attacked-in-georgia.html?src=recg

In this world of ours when people in the name of religion terrorize and oppress others out of methodical determination as if we're living in the last days of upcoming apocalypse or clash of cultures, seperation of church and state is a principle that's proven to be just and sensical more and more.

And Jefferson abso-fucking-lutely understood this centuries ago, when it came to the Church of England. As much as he and the other Founding Fathers believed in democracy, they knew its history in Rome and Greece when minority populations were oppressed with popular support from the majority.

He was a very devout man*, but he pushed forward the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which de-established the Church of England as the state (colonial) church. He didn't ban religion, he didn't ban the Church of England. He probably might be puzzled (to say the least) about the amount of secularism in culture today. But none the less he believed that church/state are just two things that should stay seperate in general for the greater good.

He was so proud of that Statute, he had it listed as one of his achievements on his epitaph. (Interesting note: His Presidency wasn't listed as one of them.)

*=I have no evidence, but I would like to believe if he saw the religious right today and their ridiculous wars against science and knowledge, he would be revolted. Of course he might also be queasy with the whole no-slavery thing but who knows?

The Constitution of the U.S. is not in any sense based on religion or, in particular, Christianity. By attaching the label Christian to the 50+ Founding Fathers doesn't begin to describe them. They are better described as men of the enlightenment, who were motivated by science, intellectualism and reason. They were inspired more by Locke than Leviticus.

The pre-Amendment Constitution only mentions religion once, and that is to mandate that there will never be a religious test for holding office in the new government. Madison and others were skeptical about religion entering politics and feared that majoritarian sects would seek to manipulate federal offices to exclude others and dictate their religion on others.

Absolutlely Kly. I might also add that at the Constitutional Convention Ben Franklin's suggestion that a pastor be employed to lead the delegates in a daily prayer was met with a collective sigh. To save face, Alexander Hamilton stated that the Convention had no funds with which to pay such a pastor.

Some truth here, but also a lot of revisionist history, in order to minimize the religious foundations of this country.

+1

Well said my friend.

Nothing revisionist about it.

The government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Religious liberty is guaranteed under the First Amendment and that liberty endures in large part to the government's neutrality to all matters religious.

Notice I never said the government was founded on the Christian religion. What I've said is:

A) The U.S. has always been a Christian nation in the sense that most of it's citizens have always been Christian.

B) Most the founders were religious, specifically Christian, and not just deists, agnostics, or secular non-believers as liberal revisionist historians have claimed.

C) The "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, as many believe. And the First Amendment simply means there is no state religion (like the Church of England) and not that religion is to be completed marginalized in society, as many secular liberals would like.

While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

+1

Except none of this translates into what secular liberals envision it to be today. For instance, there's nothing unconstitutional with lawmakers being against, say, gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. Or, for instance, something like the alcohol laws here in Utah being more stringent because of the predominant religion. Yet, these are the types of things that libs will cry "Separation of church and state" about when there's really no basis. And many liberal judges in the courts have gone beyond what the founders ever intended in order to marginalize religion as much as possible; even rewriting the history of many of the founders themselves to justify it.

A majority, be it congress or the people, cannot vote against inherent rights of a minority. It's not beyond role of a judge to struck down such an absurd measure, it's its very role to do so.

Again, you go by the assumption that a certain minority has these rights to begin with. Nowadays, if people want something, they just claim it as their "right," whether it really is or not.

The only true rights come from God because any rights given by the government or man can be taken away by government or man.

It's called inherent rights. The name is self explanatory if you are not blinded by prejudice, hatred and religious dogmas.



First of all whose Gods? What if someone hid behind another imaginary God such as yours and claimed he/she gave him/her such a right? What do you have to say then with the freedom of practicing every religion?

Second of all, any government can take away any and all rights, regardless of your labeling them as true rights given by God. What's your point? I don't see a point here.

But the video you've posted claims more than that. If you're just saying that
- the majority of US Americans are Christians,
- some of the founders were religious,
- the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution,
then wow! What a sensation! If that's all you have to say, what's the point of this thread? I think, we all know these things.
Or are you talking about interpretation?

That the actual phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution is of no consequence (the phrase "fair trial" doesn't appear either). The principles of separation of church and state are undeniably and firmly imbedded in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Of course, this does not preclude people of faith from serving in government. Nor does it require them from abandoning beliefs or convictions that are formed by faith. That would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. It prevents, however, any govrnment action that promotes or favors one faith over another, or belief in God over non-belief.

For a government action violates the Establishment Clause one of the following must be present:

1. The Act must serve a secular, non-religious purpose;
2. The Act must not promote or inhibit religious practice;
3. The Act must not create an excessive entanglement with religion.

This test is from the USSC decision in Lemon v. _____ (the name escapes me).

Kurtzman, Kly. It's one of the primary Court decisions I have my students study.

The thrust of your post is correct. The establishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st amendment were a reaction to historical British efforts to establish the Anglican Church in the Colonies and, later, to preclude such sordid religious conflicts such as that exemplified by the history of Maryland.

oli, what do you think of Gordon S. Wood. He won a Pulitzer Prize in the 90s for a book on the Founding Fathers that, I'm ashamed to say, I never got around to reading.

He's a prolific author for sure. During the past year I read his Empire of Liberty which I really enjoyed. I plan to read other of his works.