• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Separation of Church and State

Aobaru

Aobaru

Floooooon!
Pronoun
he
My constitutional law teacher is an evangelical Christian who thinks that there should be no separation of church and state; that the US is a "Christian" nation and if you're not Christian, basically shut up and deal with it. It angers me D:

So... what are your opinions on the separation of church and state?

In the US, things have shifted dramatically in favor of separation in recent years. Are things different in your countries?
 
Well, I'm from the US, but I totally agree with separation.


I am so tired of people saying that the US was built "under god". Most of the nation's founders were deist; NOT Christian. The "under god" bit in the pledge wasn't added until 1954.
 
Okay, I'm not so well-versed in these things since I don't and haven't lived in the US for many years, but. Isn't this a basic part of the constitution? You know, separation of church and state, right there with the right to own guns! (Yeahh.) Okay well.

While I personally don't see how, logically, one can argue against the separation, I don't think the two will every be fully separated (or well because I dislike those sorts of end-all statements, they probably won't be in my lifetime). The US is just too religious a country, and the people who are religious are very, very loud, whereas the atheists tend to be more soft-spoken and, well, fewer.
 
Um, no it's really not.

While the first Amendment of the Constitution does prevent congress from establishing a national religion, what it also does is ensure the right to the free exercise thereof. Lots of people seem to miss that part.

What I think this says is that, while Congress cannot force anyone to become a Christian, it doesn't mean they can't do anything else because of Christianity. Also, I think it's fair to call America a Christian nation seeing as the majority of the demographic is, but we ensure minority rights so "shutup and deal w/ it nrd" isn't quite the right attitude.

PS. Separation of Church and State was only actually mentioned in one document(ish), Letters to Virginia by Thomas Jefferson.

PPS. Back in the 1700's deist did not have the same connotation it does nowadays. It basically just meant the Church of England ticked you off.
 
I think it's fair to call America a Christian nation seeing as the majority of the demographic is, but we ensure minority rights so "shutup and deal w/ it nrd" isn't quite the right attitude.
Click to expand...

No, it’s not. Washington said it himself in the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Senate under then-president John Adams: “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

The fact that there is a right to one's religious beliefs and practices tells you it's not a Christian nation, and wasn't intended to be. Yes, Christianity is the majority, but the fact that the other religions exist within the country is proof that it's not a Christian nation.


PS. Separation of Church and State was only actually mentioned in one document(ish), Letters to Virginia by Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...

Jefferson's "wall", Madison's "line", it was advice and what he hoped would be the direction the country would take.

PPS. Back in the 1700's deist did not have the same connotation it does nowadays. It basically just meant the Church of England ticked you off.
Click to expand...


Please look at point 15.

Also, modern Deism isn't different in it's philosophies, it changes with the times, and integrates it's classical roots with modern scientific discovery.
 
Pwnemon all the fucking founders were secularists. freedom of religion was only established so people wouldn't get shot for being a protestant as opposed to a catholic

I think my viewpoint on this is known, I support a rigid separation of church and state
 
Pwnemon, would you also say the US is a "white nation" and a "female nation"? You could technically say it and it would be true if you define "x nation" as "a nation which is mostly populated by x", but that doesn't mean it isn't ludicrous and doesn't carry a boatload of unfortunate implications.

Unbelievably, church and state are not separated in Iceland. Children are automatically registered into the state church when christened. People deregister en masse when the church does something terrible (hello, insisting that two women who were raped by a priest were making it all up!), but still, what the hell. This is at least hopefully about to change.
 
Butterfree said:
Pwnemon, would you also say the US is a "white nation" and a "female nation"? You could technically say it and it would be true if you define "x nation" as "a nation which is mostly populated by x", but that doesn't mean it isn't ludicrous and doesn't carry a boatload of unfortunate implications.

Unbelievably, church and state are not separated in Iceland. Children are automatically registered into the state church when christened. People deregister en masse when the church does something terrible (hello, insisting that two women who were raped by a priest were making it all up!), but still, what the hell. This is at least hopefully about to change.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, you guys are one of the most secular nations in the world, right up there with Norway and Sweden, both of which have (or had until recently) a state Church.

Hmm.

While the first Amendment of the Constitution does prevent congress from establishing a national religion, what it also does is ensure the right to the free exercise thereof. Lots of people seem to miss that part.
Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", is what it says. That isn't limited to establishing a national religion; any law which clearly favours one religion is unconstitutional.

The words "separation of church and state" do not literally appear in the Constitution, no. But that was clearly what Jefferson had in mind with the first Amendment:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State.
Click to expand...

and SCOTUS agrees:

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black, writing for the Court, said, 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.'.
Click to expand...

In fact, the dissenting opinion in that case agreed, too:

The Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily, it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the [p32] spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.
Click to expand...
 
My constitutional law teacher likes to point out that there are two ways of interpreting the Establishment Clause:

(1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means, literally, that. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a national religion. Meaning, passing a law that says "well, the national religion is now Episcopalian Christianity." It would have all the significance of a national bird or a national color. He argues it has nothing to do with religion in the public sector.

(2) The "liberal"/"progressive" interpretation of the Establishment Clause to advance their atheistic socialist humanist utopian agenda: that any mention of religion in the public sector (in addition to passing any law which promotes a certain religion over another) is establishing a religion. (Which I tend to agree with.)

Phantom said:
Most of the nation's founders were deist; NOT Christian.
Click to expand...

I can only think of two: Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Benjamin Franklin is often thought to be a deist, so maybe three. Not that the religion of the Founders is at all relevant.

Phantom said:
No, it’s not. Washington said it himself in the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Senate under then-president John Adams: “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
Click to expand...

Article Six of the United States Constitution states: "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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So, according to the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, upon ratification by Congress, was made "the law of the land".
 
Last edited:
Pwnemon never argued that the founders were Christian, just the majority of the nation, I think.

Anyway, about the "white nation" or "female nation" bit. The first one, we already kind of do. We call it a "Western nation" which basically means "founded and populated by people of European decent (white folks)", and the latter would not make sense as a quantifier because women and men are roughly equal in the nation, and neither holds a majority over the other.
 
PPS. Back in the 1700's deist did not have the same connotation it does nowadays. It basically just meant the Church of England ticked you off.
Click to expand...
That is not really a direct statement, which is why I appended "I think".
 
Eloi said:
Anyway, about the "white nation" or "female nation" bit. The first one, we already kind of do. We call it a "Western nation" which basically means "founded and populated by people of European decent (white folks)", and the latter would not make sense as a quantifier because women and men are roughly equal in the nation, and neither holds a majority over the other.
Click to expand...

but that's not the point that Butterfree's making; it's stupid to generalise a nation (or anything) based just on the majority. Otherwise it would be completely acceptable to also call Earth a Chicken Planet, since chickens outnumber humans something like four to one. She was using gender and race as examples.
 
ultraviolet said:
but that's not the point that Butterfree's making; it's stupid to generalise a nation (or anything) based just on the majority. Otherwise it would be completely acceptable to also call Earth a Chicken Planet, since chickens outnumber humans something like four to one. She was using gender and race as examples.
Click to expand...
But generalizations based on majority can be helpful in obtaining knowledge about something, it is part of the reason why percentages, surveys, and demographics are important to many groups of people.

As well, I don't really see why there is a difference between:

[GROUP] are in majority in comparison to [OTHER GROUPS] in [NATION].
The [NATION] is characterized by [GROUP].

Where is the leap in logic? We are just changing whether [NATION] is describing [GROUP] or if [GROUP] is describing [NATION]. We can't apply that to everything, but in this specific case it doesn't not make sense.

Examples of "[GROUP] is being modified by [NATION], [NATION] is being modified by [GROUP], there is little change in meaning.":
Christians are in majority in comparison to other religious groups in the United States of America.
The United States of America is characterized by Christianity.

Japanese people are in majority comparison to other cultural groups in Japan.
The nation of Japan is characterized by Japanese people.

Communist economic ideology is in majority in comparison to other economic ideologies in China.
The nation of China is characterized by the Communist economic ideology.

See what I mean?
 
Eloi said:
[GROUP] are in majority in comparison to [OTHER GROUPS] in [NATION].
The [NATION] is characterized by [GROUP].
Click to expand...

UNICELLULAR ORGANISMS are in majority in comparison to HUMANS in UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES is characterized by UNICELLULAR ORGANISMS.

never mind that that definition of majority is fairly meaningless.
 
sreservoir said:
UNICELLULAR ORGANISMS are in majority in comparison to HUMANS in UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES is characterized by UNICELLULAR ORGANISMS.

never mind that that definition of majority is fairly meaningless.
Click to expand...

Yes, but all nations have unicelluar organisms in majority, which does not make it a unique trait, thus as a comparison to other nations that does not make sense.
 
Eloi said:
Yes, but all nations have unicelluar organisms in majority, which does not make it a unique trait, thus as a comparison to other nations that does not make sense.
Click to expand...

but there are multiple nations with a majority of Christians. So it's not a unique trait to the US. ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom