Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by BOFH:
I have read the constitution, so again, I ask my question, where in the constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" appear?



You may have read the Constitution but apparently still have no understanding as to what a constitiution is or how it works.

Originally posted by BOFH:
Now you are back pedaling and citing interpretations of the constitution by courts as well as quoting a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote.

I didn't realize that private letters by presidents automatically became law. We should alert CNN and let President Bush know that asking congress to submit a bill is overkill, he needs only to write a letter.



OK, I hope you're kidding here. Do you have any idea who Thomas Jefferson is or why he is even relevant to this topic? Didn't your high school require some sort of history course? I'll give you a hint. There is a very good reason why judges will cite to Jefferson's writings when dealing with Constitutional interpretation, but that they will never do so concerning modern presidents.

* * *

Originally posted by BOFH:
I see nothing in this that prevents the president or any elected official from holding religious beliefs or promoting policy based on those beliefs. They simply cannot hand government cash to churches or other religious organizations.



The Constitution does not prevent any elected official from holding religious beliefs. Any law that attempted to prevent any elected official from holding releigious beliefs would be struck down as being blatantly unconstitutional. Enacting or attempting to enact any law which had as its primary purpose the promotion of religion or religious policy would also be immediately struck down as a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.





I dunno, I seemed to get A's in high school, A's in my courses at a top 25 university in the US, including a few history courses. I even got an A in the one law course I've taken.

So I have a pretty good grasp of who Thomas Jefferson was and how the constitution works.

I also understand an ad hominem attack, so would you like to answer my questions or continue your feeble assault on my character because answering my question does not further your arguement?

(I briefly considered asserting that it is too difficult a question for you, but then that would also be an ad hominem attack. For those unfamiliar with such a debate strategy, see here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html )

It is clear from the post that none of my points were addressed, instead we see this great comeback:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 96RedSE5Sp
[qb]You may have read the Constitution but apparently still have no understanding as to what a constitiution is or how it works.[/qb]



There is nothing in that statement that addresses my argument, he simply makes an unsubstantiated claim that I do not understand the constitution, or how law is crafted in the United States. Yet again, provides no concrete example. We may disagree about things, but in no way does a disgreement about policy merit calling into question what the other person knows or doesn't know.

In my writings, I'm asking him to back up his assertion, to demonstrate that seperation of church and state is part of the constituion, the foundation document for our nations laws.

I further submit that Thomas Jefferson submitted a bill in Virginia in 1779 regarding religious freedom that was finally passed in 1786. I'll submit the text here:

Quote:

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom


Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;

that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;

that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;

that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind;

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry;

that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right;

that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;

that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.




Seems to me that Jefferson simply wanted freedom for men of any faith, including faith that there was NO higher power to have the same rights to live, work and even serve in official capacities. In other words, religion or lack of religion could not be used to judge the merits of a man (or woman) for any position.

So, even if you argue that Jefferson wanted a separation of church and state, it is difficult to argue that what he wanted and what the phrase separation of church and state means is a government free from those who hold and act upon their religious beliefs.

It seems clear to me that what he wanted was a government that would not discriminate based on religious belief.

Ironically, it seems many who cite Jefferson's call for separation of church and state are practicing the type of discrimination Jefferson was trying to prevent.

So 96RedSE5Sp Asserts:

Quote:

Originally asserted by 96RedSE5Sp:
[qb]
OK, I hope you're kidding here. Do you have any idea who Thomas Jefferson is or why he is even relevant to this topic? Didn't your high school require some sort of history course? I'll give you a hint. There is a very good reason why judges will cite to Jefferson's writings when dealing with Constitutional interpretation, but that they will never do so concerning modern presidents.
[/qb]



I think I've demonstrated more than a passing knowledge of Thomas Jefferson, and have even provided examples of his writings to back up my points.

So I will simply wait to see if 96RedSE5Sp can provide a cogent argument, or will simply continue to attack me and try to paint a false picture of my intellect.

So I'm simply asking you to back up your post regarding the question posted earlier in the thread, "W, and I'll quote it here for you.

Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by 99MystiqueATX:


What happened to separation of church and state??



It never existed as a law.



No, not unless you count the United States CONSTITUTION (specifically the 1st Amendment)as law - as well as dozens and dozens of judicial opinions (otherwise known as the "common law").



So you brought up the Constitution, and I asked the legitimate question where does this phrase exist in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution.

Answer the question, please.

TB

"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004