OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[Town Heretic]

It's been quite a while since the Court ruled that men were chattel.

Less so since they held human beings to be something without right, but all I need is one stupendous error to make the point.

Not so long on these issues. But, fair enough. We'll set aside the Supreme Court's considered opinions for the sake of argument, as long as we're clear what we're doing.

Not asking you to, only noting that we aren't necessarily dealing with more than fiat and bias.

Our compact states that we won't use the government to establish religion.

That was my undestanding from Con. Law.

Some Oklahoman Christians have broken that covenant in what seem to me to be strikingly clear terms.

Maybe some mean to. Maybe the nature of the state prohibition makes it hard to see it otherwise, but on the larger point of the necessity of that narrowed a gate and outcome I differ.

The suspicion was not aimed at all Christians, or even all Christians in Oklahoma, but rather the sort of Christian that advocates for Christian supremacy to the extent that they seek to remake Oklahoma as a religious state.

I wonder if Oklahomans who would actually desire it could muster numbers sufficient to do anything about it. I tend to doubt it. I mean, most Muslims here don't even want to impose Sharia law.

Beyond that, what concerns me here, is the attempt to construct "a people" from a subset of the people of the United States, i.e. Christians.

It isn't a construct any more than noting Rotarians is one. I think the acts of a few toward the fringe are coloring too much of what is reasonable here.

This seems synthetic, as the United States has never within its lifetime been partitioned in terms of religion, and in a political context, it's worrying to find ones self on the outside of the box being drawn around a body politic.

Where I'd say that's not happening, that part of my objection here is to what seems to me a gross rule and response on the part of those outside of the Christian or Jewish faiths to a thing that neither establishes either nor threatens their own peace.

When the United States was born, it had a Christian majority, true (as well as many unjustly excluded for reasons of race and sex), but also people of other faiths and none as full citizens.

Very, very few, which I suspect is why so many purely Christian rites and practices existed so easily beside the state and why, for instance, a public display of the nativity failed to bring any outcry or be seen as a violation of establishment. In fact, those scenes went unopposed for generations, until groups whose freedoms were by no stretch of the imagination threatened found sufficient numbers to raise a cry.

Now history is no argument in and of itself and I wouldn't offer it as one, but I can and will and do offer it as evidence that despite many public monuments and yearly observances not only were the freedoms of those outside the Christian faith protected, their power expanded. Yet now a monument shared by two and one whose values overwhelmingly represented the foundational truth of what arguably became the greatest and freest of institutions and a cornerstone of law...now this stone is a threat.

Stuff and nonsense.

To imagine that it is Christian beneficence that permits the equality of others is to deem others as less than full citizens.

To fail to note that it has been, over the history of the nation, the will and sacrifice of Christians that empowers the notion of equality before the law would be to make its history less than accurate.

You wouldn't have a country without secularists,and Quakers, and deists, and perhaps even the stray atheist, just as they wouldn't have a country without you.

The trick in that is the inclusion of secularists, which then brings most Christians into the camp. Now we could and did have a country almost entirely because of Christians (such were and to a lesser extent are their numbers) but secularism makes the division a bit odd.

So, all that having been said, how can you possibly justify the posting of a monument with, what seems to be negligible historical significance and what appears to me to be a clear religious message and purpose on Constitutional grounds?

Easily, first by rejecting your premise of "negligible historical significance" (not even the Court you leaned on agrees with you on the point) and then by making a series of objections and observations made prior and to a lesser extent above.

:e4e:

 

[PureX]

The Ten Commandments are more than a religious symbol and the S. Ct. has already found a "logical reason" to include them in their chambers.

They only included them because they were a part of a display depicting other non-religious sources of historical wisdom. And the supreme court said so in their remarks. In that context, the implication of religious advocacy could not be logically assumed.

And you know this.

But when such monuments are placed in government buildings without any other clear context, they do imply religious advocacy, which is exactly why these various religious groups put them there.

And you know that as well.

So you can obfuscate all you like, but you aren't fooling anyone but yourself. The intention of these monuments is to impose the idea on the public that the United States is "a Christian nation" and that it's laws will reflect Christian ideals. Which is exactly the message and the religious bias that has been forbidden by the constitution.

That's your reality/bias/assumption.

No, it's the unavoidable truth that you are trying to 'lawyer' your way around. The law is not my "bias". And the intent/effect of placing these monuments to religious ideology in government buildings is exactly the advocacy that the law is intended to oppose.

So no one can oppose your bias without being disingenuous…

Calling the law of the land and the ideals of a nation "your (my) bias" may seem like a clever way of dismissing them in favor of your own disingenuous argument, but it's not fooling anyone, here, who recognizes and respects honest dialogue.

... then you're not appreciably different than the religious fanatic you see behind every bush, apparently.

Ah, the old "Nut-huh! YOU did!" retort.

Don't you know that when you have to fall all the way back to that one, you've long since lost any credible counterpoint?

 

[rexlunae]

I wonder if Oklahomans who would actually desire it could muster numbers sufficient to do anything about it. I tend to doubt it. I mean, most Muslims here don't even want to impose Sharia law.

Well, they got that horrible "Sharia Law" law passed. They seem to have significant political power in Oklahoma.

Very, very few, which I suspect is why so many purely Christian rites and practices existed so easily beside the state and why, for instance, a public display of the nativity failed to bring any outcry or be seen as a violation of establishment.

Your local city call could erect a giant crucifix, and if no one challenged it, it would likely stand. The fact that there was less controversy likely stems in significant part from the fact that the United States was once religiously far more uniform than it is now, and the people who would challenge such things were fewer and far less organized. That shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of a practice in itself, nor does it mean that it didn't unfairly prefer one faith over others.

Yet now a monument shared by two and one whose values overwhelmingly represented the foundational truth of what arguably became the greatest and freest of institutions and a cornerstone of law...now this stone is a threat.

I'd like to see that argument.

To fail to note that it has been, over the history of the nation, the will and sacrifice of Christians that empowers the notion of equality before the law would be to make its history less than accurate.

And no one has suggested that they haven't. That doesn't entitle them to special privilege where the First Amendment is concerned, or we risk the very principles that they were fighting for.

The trick in that is the inclusion of secularists, which then brings most Christians into the camp. Now we could and did have a country almost entirely because of Christians (such were and to a lesser extent are their numbers) but secularism makes the division a bit odd.

Well, by that I meant folks who are hard to categorize otherwise, who may well have been Christians or not. But take them out and the statement is still true.

Easily, first by rejecting your premise of "negligible historical significance" (not even the Court you leaned on agrees with you on the point) and then by making a series of objections and observations made prior and to a lesser extent above.

Place the Ten Commandments in among other historical displays, and it could exhibit the history of law-givers. Simply displaying it, without further context invites suspicion that it serves a religious purpose.

 

[Town Heretic]

They only included them because they were a part of a display depicting other non-religious sources of historical wisdom. And the supreme court said so in their remarks. In that context, the implication of religious advocacy could not be logically assumed.

Only included? Sounds like it was tossed in for the heck of it instead of being recognized for its importance, among other important contributors to law and the compact. Or, context, context, context. The rest is reasonableness or a discussion over what should or shouldn't fall within it.

But when such monuments are placed in government buildings without any other clear context, they do imply religious advocacy, which is exactly why these various religious groups put them there.

Advocacy of what? Judiasm, Christianity? Or simple recognition of an important contribution and foundational truth of the compact?

So you can obfuscate all you like, but you aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

In order: not doing it, not trying to do it and were you literally stomping foot when you typed that?

The intention of these monuments is to impose the idea on the public that the United States is "a Christian nation" and that it's laws will reflect Christian ideals.

Impose in what sense? I understand what it will mean to someone who values it, but I wonder at people who invest offense in a thing that isn't objectively aimed at creating it.

Which is exactly the message and the religious bias that has been forbidden by the constitution.

Well, it hasn't, really. It mostly, in fairly modern times, has become a contextual question and a newly created and invested sensibility, as I noted about the alteration in nativity scenes on public lands.

No, it's the unavoidable truth that you are trying to 'lawyer' your way around.

Did you just play the lawyer card? Doubling down on that association I noted in your last insult then...peculiar.

So, given a lawyer's work is analysis and the application of reason to a proposition, thank you, even if you only intended the remark in a fashion I mostly run into when differing with right wing religious fundamentalists on other questions of law.

The law is not my "bias".

No, your bias is found in what you want protected and excluded by it. Nothing wrong with having a bias. Everyone does. The rest is reasonableness and particulars.

And the intent/effect of placing these monuments to religious ideology

Rather, monuments integral to religion and law.

in government buildings is exactly the advocacy that the law is intended to oppose.

No, it isn't inherently so, for the reasons stated more than once prior.

Calling the law of the land and the ideals of a nation "your (my) bias"

Not what I did.

may seem like a clever way of dismissing the disingenuousness of your own argument, but it's not fooling anyone, here, who recognizes and respects honest dialogue.

If I wanted to turn reasoned discussion into mud slinging I'd run for Congress. Else, stuff and nonsense. Not a bit of truth in any of that emotional venting. But as it wasn't formed by reason I won't feel obligated to meet it with reason, only this note.

Ah, the old "Nut-huh! YOU did!" retort.

Well, no. Not it at all, actually.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, they got that horrible "Sharia Law" law passed. They seem to have significant political power in Oklahoma.

You mean a law, however cobbled, aimed at restricting the law of the land with a religious rule of varying degrees? Not exactly the stuff of a reasonable concern regarding religious influence, when you consider it. Now if they'd attempted a law to implement Biblical guidelines or any particular religious instruction in lieu of the law I'd say you have reason for concern.

Your local city call could erect a giant crucifix, and if no one challenged it, it would likely stand.

You think so?

The fact that there was less controversy likely stems in significant part from the fact that the United States was once religiously far more uniform than it is now, and the people who would challenge such things were fewer and far less organized. That shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of a practice in itself, nor does it mean that it didn't unfairly prefer one faith over others.

I agree with the first part and suggest that the people responsible for the Establishment clause lived in those times and understood their intent... Or, again, what we're talking about isn't a failure of the compact, but of a willful attempt to alter a thing established without using the ballot box or convention. It happens, but I use it to illustrate that reasonable men can differ over lines without anyone really having more than an opinion and the means to enforce it.

So I'm arguing that the mindset of our day is an understandable one, but mistaken and overreaching.

I'd like to see that argument.

It would be something.

And no one has suggested that they haven't. That doesn't entitle them to special privilege where the First Amendment is concerned, or we risk the very principles that they were fighting for.

Where I'd say history argues against you, given we had far more of what troubles you and yet here you are.

Place the Ten Commandments in among other historical displays, and it could exhibit the history of law-givers. Simply displaying it, without further context invites suspicion that it serves a religious purpose.

So, one monument to a relgious codification of controlling law is a threat, but...what number of representation sufficiently difuses that again?

And we're back to beauty and the context or bias of the beholder.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd say the setting is contextual

Um.....that's rather bizarre given that there is no surrounding context and the monument was just sitting there by itself.

Or read the setting and, understanding the U.S. government and states don't officially endorse a particular religion and think something else, but a plaque really wouldn't be a bad idea.

Obviously it's more reasonable for an observer to see a monument to a set of religious codes on government property with no other context, and conclude that the government is endorsing that religion.

I can't imagine anyone actually arguing "Just because the government put up a monument to these religious codes, doesn't mean the government endorses or is promoting that religion".

If whether the monument was present or removed was the point of this conversation we wouldn't be having it.

Then what is the point? It's a settled issue and your side lost.

Again, the denying is all in your noggin

I think we're done here. It's pointless to have a discussion with someone who can't be bothered to even understand the fundamental facts of the case.

absent a proclamation on the point or a habit RELATIVE to a comprehensible standard for evaluation of claims. I think you'd be hard pressed to find something of similar importance in the life of the nation tied to any religion, let alone the two.

All irrelevant. The relevant facts are that the state of Oklahoma erected a monument to the 10 Commandments, despite the clear prohibition in OK's Constitution against it, and then denied the Church of Satanism's request for the same access to public resources.

Again, I'm not debating the particular case and never claimed to be.

Thanks for your input.

I didn't follow your links, but it really doesn't matter

That pretty much sums up our discussion. You operate from your own opinions and whenever I tried to introduce actual facts into the discussion, you wave them away as irrelevant.

 

[PureX]

Only included?

Is there some state in which "included" becomes something more? I guess I could have used the term "integrated". ..."Integrated", it is.

Sounds like it was tossed in for the heck of it instead of being recognized for its importance, among other important contributors to law and the compact.

No, the word was "included", not "tossed in for the heck of it". Why it sounded like "tossed in for the heck of it" to you I can only guess. Consider it to sound like "integrated", hence forth.

Or, context, context, context. The rest is reasonableness or a discussion over what should or shouldn't fall within it.

No, it's not specifically about "context, context, context". It's specifically about advocacy, advocacy, advocacy. It's about creating the implication that the government advocates for some or any specific religious ideology. And the 10 commandments are fully emblematic of Judeo-Christian religious ideology. So the government cannot be associated with them in such a way as to create the implication of advocacy. And we both know that's EXACTLY why they are being placed in government buildings, especially courthouses: to create the implication of advocacy. There is no other logical reason for such religious icons to be placed in public buildings, particularly courthouses.

Advocacy of what? Judiasm, Christianity? Or simple recognition of an important contribution and foundational truth of the compact?

Advocacy for the religious authority that they are intended to embody. It doesn't matter that both religions are beholding to that authority. The whole purpose of displaying them in a public courthouse is to imply that this religious authority is synonymous with U.S. civil and legal authority. And this implication of such advocacy is expressly forbidden by the constitution.

But you already know this.

Impose in what sense? I understand what it will mean to someone who values it, but I wonder at people who invest offense in a thing that isn't objectively aimed at creating it.

Flagrant law-breaking offends people. Especially when the intent of that flagrant law-breaking is to ignore and insult a fundamental principal upon which this nation was founded, and for which a lot of our citizens have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Well, it hasn't, really. It mostly, in fairly modern times, has become a contextual question and a newly created and invested sensibility, as I noted about the alteration in nativity scenes on public lands.

Your whole argument seems to be based on minimizing the wrongness of your own position by insulting and belittling the opposing position: claiming that the fundamental laws and principals of this country are just "biased opinions" which can be easily dismissed. Or that anyone who actually cares about these laws and principals are "over-reactive" because it's all just about "context" and not really about fundamental principals.

Basically, you have no reasonable argument for breaking the law and insulting the principal of the separation of church and state, so you spend your energy trying to diminish and dismiss anyone who respects them and are offended by those who do not. Aren't you even a little ashamed of this line of thought and behavior? Or is everything OK so long as it's in the service of promoting and defending your religion?

 

[Town Heretic]

Um.....that's rather bizarre given that there is no surrounding context and the monument was just sitting there by itself.

Rather, your complaint begins with a recognition of context. It's sitting in what? Not a churchyard, which would be another context.

Obviously it's more reasonable for an observer to see a monument to a set of religious codes on government property with no other context, and conclude that the government is endorsing that religion.

To a hammer everything looks like a nail. That said, a plaque noting the particular type of recognition would be the easiest way to clear up any potential for confusion on the point and if it was up to me I'd say why not do that?

I can't imagine anyone actually arguing "Just because the government put up a monument to these religious codes, doesn't mean the government endorses or is promoting that religion".

Me either, since that's not mine...well, I can imagine it, but it still isn't mine. First, it doesn't belong to one religion and second, it's a legal code within the context of a religion that impacted legal codes outside of either of the two religions that embraced it and third, it represents a foundation embraced by those who actually establisned the compact, was important to them and that construction in a way few other particulars can claim.

Then what is the point?

I made an observation, I don't believe it was even particularly aimed at an individual, and you responded. If you don't know why you did that or kept writing I'm certainly not going to be able to tell you.

It's a settled issue and your side lost.

So you should feel great. You don't seem to, but you should. At least for the present.

I think we're done here. It's pointless to have a discussion with someone who can't be bothered to even understand the fundamental facts of the case.

If you think that's the difference then you haven't bothered to understand me at all.

All irrelevant. The relevant facts are that the state of Oklahoma erected a monument to the 10 Commandments, despite the clear prohibition in OK's Constitution against it, and then denied the Church of Satanism's request for the same access to public resources.

Not my point at any point, though when pressed on the particular I gave an opinion.

Thanks for you input.

Well, it would have been rude to ignore you. Now it almost seems rude to respond to you...or an invitation to bring out something in you that doesn't do either of us any particular good. So maybe that's as good as any a reason to part on the point.

That pretty much sums up our discussion.

I agree, though normally you just misstate instead of truncate to leave an impression short of the actual. But good on you for trying something new. :thumb:

You operate from your own opinions

Whose hand is up your back?

and whenever I tried to introduce actual facts into the discussion, you wave them away as irrelevant.

Not even a little true, but like you, so far as this discussion is concerned, to say so.

So... :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Is there some state in which "included" becomes something more? I guess I could have used the term "integrated". ..."Integrated", it is.

You wrote, "They only included them..." as though begrudingly or as an afterthought. The impression that invited seemed at odds with the facts. So it was more the "only" than it was the "included".

No, it's not specifically about "context, context, context".

Has to be or the Court would have removed its own.

It's specifically about advocacy, advocacy, advocacy.

And yet there they are, large as life.

It's about creating the implication that the government advocates for some or any specific religious ideology.

The Establishment clause was written to keep political and religious power from intertwining, as it had to disastrous effect in Europe. If someone wants to read in your impression in they're going to have a deuced difficult time making the case from surrounding law, exercise of right, etc. Or, in what way does it even advocate (let alone actualy establish) that makes the word meaningful? For what particular? In what way does it provide any meaningful preferential advantage?

I can see the honor of recognition. Beyond that? It seems mostly invention, imagination and a misplaced concern for something that isn't actually happening.

And we both know that's EXACTLY why they are being placed in government buildings, especially courthouses: to create the implication of advocacy. There is no other logical reason for such religious icons to be placed in public buildings, particularly courthouses.

Anytime someone says we know a thing it almost never follows that they do...or, more than once I've given reasons other than advocacy in response to that claim. No point in treading over it again. Suffice to say, I believe you're mistaken. It may be that some desire the very thing you're describing, but it isn't inherent.

Advocacy for the religious authority that they are intended to embody. It doesn't matter that both religions are beholding to that authority.

It doesn't? Then what, pray tell, is advocated? If simply the notion of God then it's on par with money.

Flagrant law-breaking offends people.

So does an attempt to heap the coals of suspicion upon recognition of any semblance of the religious life integral to the nation's history and arguably its well-being, for many. But it needn't be and isn't inherently as you describe, which, again, is why the S.Ct. isn't redecorating.

Your whole argument seems to be based on minimizing the wrongness of your own position

Your approach seems integrally attached to promoting that unproven notion.

by insulting and belittling the opposing position:

Quote me doing that. I can rather easily quote the opposition using that methodology nearly to a man.

claiming that the fundamental laws and principals of this country are just "biased opinions" which can be easily dismissed.

I have never, not once, done anything of the sort. It doesn't do you any good or your argument justice to keep up this sort of thing. Rather, the writers of the Clause you lean heavily upon didn't share your or the modern vision of it. But mostly I continue to appeal to a moderate, considered reflection and eschew carte blanche for the proponents of extremes.

Or that anyone who actually cares about these laws and principals are "over-reactive" because it's all just about "context" and not really about fundamental principals.

Rather, I care very much about the reasonable separation of religion and power, outside of the individual's conscience. I think context is an honored principle of law, which distinguishes between the letter and intent of it and sometimes mitigates what would otherwise be an unjust verdict in the name of justice.

Basically, you have no reasonable argument for breaking the law and insulting the principal of the separation of church and state,

I think that's unreasonable as representations go, of every particular.

so you spend your energy trying to diminish and dismiss anyone who respects them and are offended by those who do not.

So you keep saying, between insults and declaring what I know...but it's beans, and bad ones.

Aren't you even a little ashamed of this line of thought and behavior?

Do you mean to be ironic or are you that blind to your methodology?

Or is everything OK so long as it's in the service of promoting and defending your religion?

I actually disagreed with you when I was an atheist. So you're going to have to find something else to hang that on. The notion that I'm behaving poorly in defense of my understanding and opinion is simply an invention.

 

[PureX]

The Establishment clause was written to keep political and religious power from intertwining, as it had to disastrous effect in Europe. If someone wants to read in your impression in they're going to have a deuced difficult time making the case from surrounding law, exercise of right, etc. Or, in what way does it even advocate (let alone actualy establish) that makes the word meaningful? For what particular? In what way does it provide any meaningful preferential advantage?

This nation has been struggling since it's inception to overcome it's own inability to live up to it's own intended purposes, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. And a big reason for this is because people have a hard time separating their religious beliefs from the function and purpose of government. And we can see this in the many laws that have been written and enforced for centuries that directly countermand the stated intention of the establishment of the nation. The founders themselves wrote that "all men are created equal" and yet because of their religious cultural backgrounds they could not see the term "all men" as including uneducated white men, all men of color, and all women. And I am quite sure that had the question of homosexuals come up, they would have viewed them as less than beasts, thanks mostly to their own religious cultural backgrounds.

So that when these founders quite wisely determined that the power of the state must be kept apart from the bias of religion, they did not fully appreciate just how intertwined these entities already were, even within themselves. And we have, as a nation, been struggling to obtain a better understanding of the need for this separation, and for a more effective and encompassing expression of this separation, throughout our history.

And throughout this struggle there have always been those who have fought for intertwining the power of the state with the bias of religion, more, instead of less. But in so doing they were and are actively fighting against a fundamental principal upon which the nation was founded, even though we have never been fully able to live up to it.

The evidence for the need of this separation is everywhere, and has always been. As we are still struggling to get them apart, and to keep them that way. As was our goal from the beginning.

I can see the honor of recognition. Beyond that? It seems mostly invention, imagination and a misplaced concern for something that isn't actually happening.

Well, then, you are quite blinded by your own religious biases. Because the current battle for gay rights is a direct and very loud example of the ongoing struggle to separate religious ideology from the power of the state. And before that it was the struggle for women's rights, and for race equity, and for worker's rights, and so on. All necessitated by biases built into ourselves and our governmental systems by the self-serving bias of wealthy white Christian male supremacy.

Anytime someone says we know a thing it almost never follows that they do...or, more than once I've given reasons other than advocacy in response to that claim. No point in treading over it again. Suffice to say, I believe you're mistaken. It may be that some desire the very thing you're describing, but it isn't inherent.

There are no other logical reasons for placing religious monuments in court houses but to either imply judicial advocacy of religious principals, or to implore it (at least none that Christians can admit to), especially when doing so clearly inflames the issue. Either way it's a violation of the prohibition against government advocacy of religion.

So does an attempt to heap the coals of suspicion upon recognition of any semblance of the religious life integral to the nation's history and arguably its well-being, for many. But it needn't be and isn't inherently as you describe, which, again, is why the S.Ct. isn't redecorating.

Lies are still lies even when we tell ourselves that we're justified in telling them.

Advocating for theocracy is still advocating for theocracy even when you tell yourself that you're not really doing that, or that it's not really unconstitutional. Because you're still lying even when you believe your own lies. George Bush lied us into invading another country. The fact that he lied to himself about it, first, and believed his own lies, doesn't change the fact that he lied to us.

Advocating for laws based on religion is advocating for theocracy. And advocating for theocracy is advocating for the dismissal of a fundamental, founding principal of this country. You can lie to yourself and everyone else about this all you want to, because it's a free country. But your lies remain lies no matter how many times you claim they aren't, or how thoroughly you believe that. And this is not an "opinion". it's a fact.

If you like the way our forefathers could not live up to the ideals that they set out for the nation they created, because in their failure, your religion gains credence and authority, then be honest about it. And say that. And stop lying about it.

Rather, I care very much about the reasonable separation of religion and power, outside of the individual's conscience. I think context is an honored principle of law, which distinguishes between the letter and intent of it and sometimes mitigates what would otherwise be an unjust verdict in the name of justice.

"Reasonable separation" according to whom? ….

Which is exactly why the separation has to be written in iron, and maintained apart from your or my reasoning. We are biased.

The whole point of a constitutional democracy is to overrule "reason" regarding the most fundamental principals upon which the union is being built. Because if any government allows for "reasoning" or "democracy" to overrule those principals, they will not stand for long. Our biases will soon "reason" and "vote" them out of existence.

Which is exactly what the new American Christian zealots are hoping for. And is why those of us who dread that ever happening get so "worked up" in the face of this ongoing assault on the principal of the separation of church and state.

 

[Dialogos]

I find it quite peculiar that those who recite "separation of church and state" demonstrate absolutely no awareness of the historic origin of that phrase.

That phrase has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the state from the influence of religious citizens. It has everything to do with keeping houses of worship free from governmental censure or curtailing religious liberty.

"Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th. Jefferson"​

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

 

[PureX]

I find it quite peculiar that those who recite "separation of church and state" demonstrate absolutely no awareness of the historic origin of that phrase.

That phrase has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the state from the influence of religious citizens. It has everything to do with keeping houses of worship free from governmental censure or curtailing religious liberty.

"Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th. Jefferson"​

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

He also signed his name to "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" while he kept men and women enslaved. So before you go using these men as the standard for American government, keep in mind that their ideals far outstripped their personal abilities to fully understand them, and to live by them.

The ideal of the separation of church and state far surpass just the selfish religionist's idea that the government cannot interfere in church business. It certainly does also preclude the church from interfering in the affairs of state. For obvious and sensible reasons.

 

[Dialogos]

He also signed his name to "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" while he kept men and women enslaved. So before you go using these men as the standard for American government, keep in mind that their ideals far outstripped their personal abilities to fully understand them, and to live by them.

Which really isn't an argument that defends of your flawed interpretation of the ideal of "separation of church and state."

There are two discernible truths here.

1. Thomas Jefferson lived his ideals imperfectly.
2. You still have no idea what "separation of church and state" actually means.

The ideal of the separation of church and state far surpass just the selfish religionist's idea that the government cannot interfere in church business.

No, that's exactly what the phrase meant when Jefferson coined it and the secular attempt to coopt that phrase and make the door swing the other way round just shows that there is little desire to understand the ideals of our country in context.

What I do find selfish is the constant Orwellian attempt to redefine words and concepts in order to advance your social agenda.

So "Religious Liberty" means "free to support our particular version of right and wrong or be punished" (think homosexual marriage here). And "Separation of church and state" means "a society sanitized from any public displays of faith."

It certainly does also preclude the church from interfering in the affairs of state. For obvious and sensible reasons.

:nono:

False!

Churches are made up of citizens who, for obvious and sensible reasons, should have every right to speak into the affairs of state.

 

[Jose Fly]

That phrase has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the state from the influence of religious citizens.

I don't believe I've seen anyone argue otherwise.

It has everything to do with keeping houses of worship free from governmental censure or curtailing religious liberty.

Which includes ensuring that the government doesn't pick sides in religious disputes (e.g., promoting one religion over others).

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

Exactly....the intent is to keep the government from interfering in religious matters, including picking sides. As Jefferson explained, religion is a personal matter, and citizens shouldn't be looking to the government for religious instruction (e.g., "No other Gods").

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.

Yep. If the wall separates the government from the church, it also separates the church from the government.

 

[Town Heretic]

This nation has been struggling since it's inception to overcome it's own inability to live up to it's own intended purposes, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Sometimes that's true. Other times our desires and attitudes simply change. That, I believe, is what's happening here, which is why those early leaders didn't feel we had to have a S.Ct. case to determine if the S. Ct. could include the Ten Commandments on display.

So I don't disagree on the general point, but think it fails in this particular, is mostly about prevailing winds that have begun to redefine what's appropriate and coercive and establishing, etc.

Well, then, you are quite blinded by your own religious biases.

Yet I'm arguing for a reasoned, case by case examination and you're not, and I can and have seen the value in a good bit of what concerns you and you don't appear to be capable of seeing anything outside of your own box.

Because the current battle for gay rights is a direct and very loud example of the ongoing struggle to separate religious ideology from the power of the state.

Remind me again where I came down on that legally? I think that's a good example of where a reasoned examination can't find purchase for a secular advance. In fact, arguing that point put me on the hotseat with more than a few of my fellows within the Christian faith.

So why am I on a different side now? Obviously not the blinkers you'd like to slap on an impression of me and it's one reason you shouldn't be doing much of what you're attempting with me.

And before that it was the struggle for women's rights, and for race equity, and for worker's rights, and so on.

Same sort of response as my last.

There are no other logical reasons for placing religious monuments in court houses but to either imply judicial advocacy of religious principals

You'll imagine my astonishment, having named more than one and both of them being reasoned and reasonable.

Or, you're as wrong as the fellow who says the only reason for Arlington is to glorify war. No other logical reason. That's how he sees it, to be sure and there's some argument that it might do just that, but it isn't and needn't be the only reason. Neither is your understanding the only possibility here.

especially when doing so clearly inflames the issue.

That Manson used a Beatles album to concoct a murder is no argument against music.

Either way it's a violation of the prohibition against government advocacy of religion. Lies are still lies even when we tell ourselves that we're justified in telling them.

Advocacy is too much like beauty. Establishment? That's easy. That's power. But that isn't happening so those who oppose the thing stretch and move the margins. Okay. And those margins can be revisited later as surely as they are today. I'll address the "lies" histrionics in a moment.

Advocating for theocracy is still advocating for theocracy even when you tell yourself that you're not really doing that, or that it's not really unconstitutional.

The last thing anyone here will ever accuse me of is advocating for a theocracy absent Christ as the literal head of it.

Because you're still lying even when you believe your own lies.

You tell a lie when you speak that which you know to be other than the truth. Anything else is just an attempt to paint something it isn't to suit a taste. So that's that.

George Bush lied us into invading another country. The fact that he lied to himself about it, first, and believed his own lies, doesn't change the fact that he lied to us.

That's irrational, supra. Either he spoke the truth as he believed it or he didn't. The rest is pure invention.

:e4e:

 

[quip]

No, that's exactly what the phrase meant when Jefferson coined it and the secular attempt to coopt that phrase and make the door swing the other way round just shows that there is little desire to understand the ideals of our country in context.

Well, if you erect a wall after crossing through the door's threshold, the door effectively doesn't serve it's intended purpose...does it?

Doors are generally bi-directional. The saying could as easily be coined: A separation of State and Church.

 

[Dialogos]

Well, if you erect a wall after crossing through the door's threshold, the door effectively doesn't serve it's intended purpose...does it?

So in your view then, anyone who considers themselves part of a "church" should be excluded from determining the direction of the state?

 

[quip]

So in your view then, anyone who considers themselves part of a "church" should be excluded from determining the direction of the state?

...per the (influential) dictates of said church.

 

[Dialogos]

...via the dictates of said church.

I see, so how does the gov. go about ferreting out those motives?

Is there some questionnaire that the gov. should have each citizen sign before voting so that anyone who votes "along religious lines" has their particular ballot tossed out?

Maybe we should have every citizen sign a declaration that they solemnly swear to keep their deeply held religious values at bay before participating in civic discourse?



The separation of church and state was not intended to insulate the government from its religious citizens, it was to insulate the church from the interference of the gov.

 

[quip]

I see, so how does the gov. go about ferreting out those motives?

That's the $100k question! Though, removing public, dogmatic, religious commandments seems a laudable start.

The separation of church and state was not intended to insulate the government from its religious citizens, it was to insulate the church from the interference of the gov.

Reiterating rhetoric make it more plausable? I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here.