Separation of Church and State

[obsrvr524]

This seems like such a simple issue to me. Leave it to the Americans to obscure the simple into a hellacious contention.

The idea of separation of church and state seems to be merely one of the judges involved in determining if laws have been broken are NOT to judge on whether the action was good or bad, merely legal or illegal.

Currently Ms Amy Barret is defending herself against the socialist (anti-democrat) US political wing (the "Democrats") in a Senate hearing to determine her qualifications for Supreme Court Judge. The argument against her is fundamentally that she is Catholic and therefore unqualified due to conflict of interest.

The argument against her is continued by posing the idea that she cannot be loyal to both her Catholic religion and also the constitutional laws of the USA. They claim (biasly) that she will either support laws that favor her religion and reject laws that offend her religion or visa-versa. The claim is that such is inescapable.

The simple fact is that the position of Judge has nothing to do with choosing which laws to support or reject. She is not applying for the job of determining what laws should or should not be. That is the job of Congress or Parliament. Her job is simply to decide whether the actions being presented in a case constitute an obedience to the current laws or not. She has stated and in the past demonstrated that she understands that and expects nothing else. It is that simple.


Once again this appears to be another Leftist/Socialist projection of their own illegal and sinister behavior. Other than that, what is the complication?

[Ecmandu]

If you’re ideological, you can play a lot of cryptic word games in rulings. It would be ‘legal’ but not in the spirit of the law.

[obsrvr524]

If you’re ideological, you can play a lot of cryptic word games in rulings. It would be ‘legal’ but not in the spirit of the law.

I certainly agree that can happen. That is what the socialists have been doing for years. The problem is that it is actually illegal but it is done in a subtle enough way to be too hard to prove. They cheat. So of course they say, "because we always cheat any chance we get, you will certainly do the same." The problem is that the conservatives represent a moralistic society and the liberals represent a lawless society.

But given the leftist stance that all people will always cheat, what is the complaint? If Ms Barret cheats, she will be merely doing what they support and believe that everyone always does. If everyone is always going to do it, what is there to debate? The Left cannot claim that she is a problem because she might cheat. They support cheating and claim that it cannot be and should not be avoided.

If you ask a cheater if she is going to cheat, what answer do you expect to get? Do you expect the answer to be different from someone who isn't a cheater?

Basically the Left is saying that we reject you because "WE do not separate religion from state and you are of a different religion than ours". They are claiming that there can be no separation between church and state. So what are they doing in office?

Merely by complaining of her religion, they have already committed perjury against the US Constitution and their oath to it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

One reason it is hypocrisy is that every president has been (at least according to their teams) a Christian. Kennedy was Catholic, for example, and I find it hard to imagine Dems saying he could not be both Catholic and President, and presidents have much more power than a single court justice and a wider variety of roles where church and state could overlap in direct action.

IOW re: Peter K.'s thread on bad faith (read:hypocrisy) the dems are setting themselves up to contradict future actions, where they will not be concerned about their nominees/candidates religious affiliation, and then also absolutely contradicting past nominations and candidates.

Both parties are hypocrital with regularity. Functional convenient amnesiacs.

[Mowk]

When politics condones one religion, any notion of religious freedom itself is corrupted. Why force swearing an oath on a bible, if you do not ascribe to a belief in the God the bible endorses. Or if the bible itself is Truth. I have read it a few times and it is the greatest collection of metaphoric truths and literal falsehoods I have ever seen collected together. That isn't a great expression of freedom of religion. Why does our politics insist on printing currency with the phrase "In God We Trust" because what we are really asking our citizens to do in to trust the governance that issues the currency to determine the value of that currency. It has about as much to do with a god, as printing "in paper we trust" or in governance we trust. All the while there are often segments of our government operations that just can't be trusted. Humans often really fuck their roles up and are not examples that endear trust.

This notion you have that Judges are only involved in determining what is legal or illegal is simplistic in scope at best. The Supreme Court collectively has that capacity to rule an amendment to the constitution as unconstitutional. That is all about the rights and wrongs of human activity. Laws are passed because behaviors are determined to be good or bad, moral or immoral. It is with this notion that we derive their legality; It is how we determine a human right requires lawful protection.

The religious right has done nothing other then to flood the political landscape with a single religions iconography. That is not religious freedom. The pledge of allegiance was a fine article until some right wing religious nutjob insisted on adding the phrase under God, to the idea of One Nation. That is not an example of the separation of church and state, nor is it an example of the assurance of religious freedom, it is a corruption of that freedom.

[obsrvr524]

The Supreme Court collectively has that capacity to rule an amendment to the constitution as unconstitutional. That is all about the rights and wrongs of human activity.

That is where many people misunderstand. Judges are NOT involved the right or wrong of any law. Judges are to simply discern whether the laws that have been passed down are being obeyed, case by case. A judge might believe that a given law is a horrible law yet still rule against a person for disobeying it because that is the duty the judge is sworn to do and his obligation to earn his pay. It is a very mechanical position - "Did he run the stop sign or not?" versus "Should there have been a stop sign there?"

Judges do not make the laws. Judges are paid merely to examine and rule on the consistency and compliance to whatever laws the legislators have enacted. They DO NOT discern good from bad activity. They are NOT to intervene with their own opinion and when they do that, an appellate court will overrule them. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has no one to overrule them although individual justices can still be impeached and removed.

There are currently 4 US Supreme Court Justices who should be impeached for committing perjury against their oath of office. In a case before the court, they each voted that the President of the USA has the constitutional right to literally burn politically controversial books (Orwellian/Hitlerian). That is a case that is very clearly specified by the first amendment to the US Constitution - The Freedom of Expression.

Laws are passed because behaviors are determined to be good or bad, moral or immoral.

By the LEGISLATIVE body, NOT by judges. Judges are only about whether a given law has been broken, not whether it should have been a law.

The pledge of allegiance was a fine article until some right wing religious nutjob insisted on adding the phrase under God, to the idea of One Nation.

Don't you have that backwards? The US Pledge of Allegiance originally had the "One nation under God" phrase. It was a left wing secular "nutjob" who took it out in favor of his religion - Secularism. And the pledge is to the nation, not to any presumed God.

It is interesting to see how many people have been fooled into believing the opposite (rewritten history) of the truth.

[Ecmandu]

The judges trump massively elected were put there because he doesn’t want to be criminally indicted after he leaves office. Lower courts, appellate courts, the Supreme Court. Etc... he’s covering his ass by appointing 230 psychopaths. This is nothing like when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (partly lines) gave Bush the presidency even though he lost the electoral college.

This is much worse.

Trump in one administration made the courts stronger than the congress and executive branch.

Doesn’t matter if Biden wins anymore.

Doesn’t matter if everyone in Congress is a Democrat.

Trump already won the war of destroying democracy in America.

The only other option is civil war.

[obsrvr524]

It is interesting to see how many people have been fooled into believing the opposite (rewritten history) of the truth.

Case to the point:

The judges trump massively elected were put there because he doesn’t want to be criminally indicted after he leaves office. Lower courts, appellate courts, the Supreme Court. Etc... he’s covering his ass by appointing 230 psychopaths. This is nothing like when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (partly lines) gave Bush the presidency even though he lost the electoral college.

This is much worse.

Trump in one administration made the courts stronger than the congress and executive branch.

Doesn’t matter if Biden wins anymore.

Doesn’t matter if everyone in Congress is a Democrat.

Trump already won the war of destroying democracy in America.

The only other option is civil war.

Judgmental obviously having no knowledge of the reality - Preach first opinion. Defend it to the end.

But this thread isn't about Mr Trump, the US Supreme Court, or the US Constitution.

[Ecmandu]

It is interesting to see how many people have been fooled into believing the opposite (rewritten history) of the truth.

Case to the point:

The judges trump massively elected were put there because he doesn’t want to be criminally indicted after he leaves office. Lower courts, appellate courts, the Supreme Court. Etc... he’s covering his ass by appointing 230 psychopaths. This is nothing like when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (partly lines) gave Bush the presidency even though he lost the electoral college.

This is much worse.

Trump in one administration made the courts stronger than the congress and executive branch.

Doesn’t matter if Biden wins anymore.

Doesn’t matter if everyone in Congress is a Democrat.

Trump already won the war of destroying democracy in America.

The only other option is civil war.

Judgmental obviously having no knowledge of the reality - Preach first opinion. Defend it to the end.

Dude, you’re being an ass.

Everyone knows the Supreme Court broke the law when bush became president.

Trump made this situation on a scale not even bush could accomplish. Trump is the end of American democracy. The end. That’s it. It’s dead.

[obsrvr524]

As I said.

[Ecmandu]

As I said.

You’re not a rational person. I know why you’re so obsessed with James.

The judges rule all of America now... and they’re all psychopathic evangelical fuckheads. Trump won the war.

He left no option besides civil war. How’s that for bringing people together?

80-90% of the US population vehemently disagrees with opinions of those trump hired into lifetime positions.

Does that sound like a democracy to you? That the people’s voices are being heard?

He doesn’t give a fuck about America, never has.

[obsrvr524]

Do those totally uneducated opinions have anything at all to do with the separation of church and state?

Yeah I didn't think so.

[Ecmandu]

Do those totally uneducated opinions have anything at all to do with the separation of church and state?

Yeah I didn't think so.

These are perfectly established facts, and yes, since they are all psychopathic evangelical fuckheads, it has EVERYTHING to do with separation of church and state

[obsrvr524]

Ask a question of a silly person....

[promethean75]

"He doesn’t give a fuck about America, never has."

This may not be true. For instance, if he gives a fuck about at least one thing or person in america, AND, we establish that america is not an entity itself but rather either or both a location or/and a collection of individuals, we would be able to say he gives a fuck about america, since he likes one of the things or/and people that is either at this location, or is part of the collection of things that is america.

[Mowk]

Don't you have that backwards? The US Pledge of Allegiance originally had the "One nation under God" phrase. It was a left wing secular "nutjob" who took it out in favor of his religion - Secularism. And the pledge is to the nation, not to any presumed God.

It is interesting to see how many people have been fooled into believing the opposite (rewritten history) of the truth.

I think it is you that just didn't get it, forwards or backwards.

Addition of "under God" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance. Take a look, and if you have a reference to the way you tell the story please include it.

That is where many people misunderstand. Judges are NOT involved the right or wrong of any law.

If an amendment to the constitution is challenged in court it damn straight is the responsibility of the Court to rule on it's constitutionality, particularly if the challenge is based on a question of the laws constitutionality.

Judges do not make the laws

I never said they did, that is the responsibility of the Houses of Congress and the President. On that we agree. But they can unmake a law, over rule it. The Three branches of governance are based on a system of checks and balances. If a law written by the legislative branch is signed by the President it becomes law, and if the constitutionality of that law is challenged it is the courts responsibility to rule on the challenge.

I'll stand my ground on that account.

Our nation currently has been overrun by the religious right and doesn't practice the separation. The first amendment prohibits the state from promoting one religion over another. But that is exactly what takes place every time someone is asked to swear an oath with their hand on a bible and including the words so help you god.

By printing, on our currency "In God We Trust", that separation has been corrupted.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices.. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.

I think it important to note that it forbids Congress from promoting one religion over others, and our right wing legislature is doing just that by promoting Christianity over other religions. The religious right has unconstitutionally run amok in both political parties. The Republican Party has no "corner-on-the-market" there.

Read up on Thomas Jefferson and his influence as a founding father.

[obsrvr524]

I think it is you that just didn't get it, forwards or backwards.

Addition of "under God" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance.

An early pledge was created in 1887 by Captain George T. Balch,[13] a veteran of the Civil War, who later became auditor of the New York Board of Education.[14] Balch's pledge, which was recited contemporaneously with Bellamy's until the 1923 National Flag Conference, read:[13]

We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country, one language, one flag!

The pledge that later evolved into the form used today was composed in August 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

In 1906, The Daughters of the American Revolution's magazine, The American Monthly, used the following wording for the pledge of allegiance, based on Balch's Pledge:

I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag

June 22, 1942:[27]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

February 12, 1948,[28] he led the society in reciting the pledge with the two words "under God" added. He said that the words came from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Was there really an original? It evolved from "God" to "nation indivisible" to "God" to "nation indivisible" and back to "under God". Now the communist Marxists want to change it back to "nation indivisible" (as they go to every extreme to divide it).

That is where many people misunderstand. Judges are NOT involved the right or wrong of any law.

If an amendment to the constitution is challenged in court it damn straight is the responsibility of the Court to rule on it's constitutionality, particularly if the challenge is based on a question of the laws constitutionality.

That's the problem. The amendment wasn't being challenged. It was a challenge against the power of the Presidency. The first amendment is extremely clear against the government (any branch) forbidding free political expression ("book burning").

Judges do not make the laws

I never said they did, that is the responsibility of the Houses of Congress and the President. On that we agree. But they can unmake a law, over rule it. The Three branches of governance are based on a system of checks and balances. If a law written by the legislative branch is signed by the President it becomes law, and if the constitutionality of that law is challenged it is the courts responsibility to rule on the challenge.

I'll stand my ground on that account.

Who is arguing against that? Not me.

Our nation currently has been overrun by the religious right and doesn't practice the separation.

That is just ignorance.

The first amendment prohibits the state from promoting one religion over another. But that is exactly what takes place every time someone is asked to swear an oath with their hand on a bible and including the words so help you god.

They never say which god (which religion) and if the person doesn't believe in ANY god, then what difference does it make if he swears under it?

The freedom of religion is about getting to choose whatever beliefs you want. It doesn't say that there can be religion in government as long as it doesn't force you to do the same.

By printing, on our currency "In God We Trust", that separation has been corrupted.

That is just childlike whining to promote communist Marxism. If they had printed "In Boogy-Man we trust", would you start worshiping the boogy-man or just throw out all of your money? I suspect neither. Maybe you prefer "In Chairman Mao we Trust". Xi Jinping?

I think it important to note that it forbids Congress from promoting one religion over others, and our right wing legislature is doing just that by promoting Christianity over other religions.

If it was doing that you might be right but since it isn't actually doing that .. your not.

[Ecmandu]

"He doesn’t give a fuck about America, never has."

This may not be true. For instance, if he gives a fuck about at least one thing or person in america, AND, we establish that america is not an entity itself but rather either or both a location or/and a collection of individuals, we would be able to say he gives a fuck about america, since he likes one of the things or/and people that is either at this location, or is part of the collection of things that is america.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. He’s in debt to the Russian mob for 60 million (all the money he’s worth).

Does he love America ? No. Is he afraid of his owners and being sent to prison? Yes.

He would have loved to move over shores!

But he had a debt to pay, and his debtors said “become president” and so he is.

[Mowk]

WIth regard to the pledge I was speaking in reference our current pledge, the last change made was to add the words, and it was made by the religious right. It was a Democrat who is credited for the legislation to have the words added.

A governance founded on the separation of church and state should not pass legislature that endorses any religion over the nation. I would say I am agnostic, and I get real sick of a government that thinks it can push a god over the nation. About as sick as I've become of reading your hog wash. The first amendment protects your opinion but the truth is what it is and your opinion doesn't match up to the truth of it.

You are vastly too overgeneralizing to speak to any real specificity and the closest your statements come to the truth is half way.

Mowk wrote:
Our nation currently has been overrun by the religious right and doesn't practice the separation.

That is just ignorance.

It is self evident. Observable. If you find ignorance in it, it is your ignorance you aren't seeing.

They never say which god (which religion) and if the person doesn't believe in ANY god, then what difference does it make if he swears under it?

The freedom of religion is about getting to choose whatever beliefs you want. It doesn't say that there can be religion in government as long as it doesn't force you to do the same.

The word "God" is a reference to a singular deity of Abraham's origins. That word is specific to the singular branch of religion called Christianity. Other religions have other names for their deity. So yeah I find the mention of God on our currency, in our courts, and in our laws a violation of the separation of church and state. No one can force another to believe, but it is all too possible to attempt indoctrination. Ours is not a nation under a god. It was never intended to be, in fact it was something to be avoided.

The bible "as a text" is sacred only to christians. To use it in any capacity that is a practice of governance is a violation of the separation, and is an endorsement, which is what the first amendment was written to prevent.

The radically religions have bent the first amendment and bent it again. Your opinion bends it even further.

[obsrvr524]

WIth regard to the pledge I was speaking in reference our current pledge, the last change made was to add the words [add the words back], and it was made by the religious right. It was a Democrat who is credited for the legislation to have the words added.

Yes, the US Democrat party used to stand for right wing democracy. Today it has been overtaken by first sympathy liberals then by Marxists (just as the Marxist scheme stimulates).

A governance founded on the separation of church and state should not pass legislature that endorses any religion over the nation. I would say I am agnostic, and I get real sick of a government that thinks it can push a god over the nation. About as sick as I've become of reading your hog wash. The first amendment protects your opinion but the truth is what it is and your opinion doesn't match up to the truth of it.

I don't disagree with keeping them separate. My disagreement is with what is actually going on versus what is being asserted. Having "under God" does NOT push or promote any religion. And no one is punished for speaking against the existence of any God.

You are vastly too overgeneralizing to speak to any real specificity and the closest your statements come to the truth is half way.

I was going to say that about you.

Personally I very slightly favor the words not being there. But I don't think that the issue actually has anything to do with promoting any religion. My complaint is that changing such words is explicit effort to promote the "religion" called "Communism". Communism complains about any God speech so that they can fill the role themselves.

The good of having the words is that they point out that the nation is not to be controlled by any Man, no matter who he is.

Mowk wrote:
Our nation currently has been overrun by the religious right and doesn't practice the separation.

That is just ignorance.

It is self evident. Observable. If you find ignorance in it, it is your ignorance you aren't seeing.

Assertions made from ignorance always claim "self-evident" assumed facts. The problem is that true attempts to take over a nation also use "self-evident" deceptions to create subversion and eventual revolution.

The freedom of religion is about getting to choose whatever beliefs you want.

It is "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion". That is what you don't seem to accept.

It doesn't say that there can be religion in government as long as it doesn't force you to do the same.

Correction - that was supposed to say

It doesn't say that there can't be religion in government as long as it doesn't force you to do the same.

[Ecmandu]

It’s pretty much absurd what you’re arguing obsrvr.

The constitution let no women vote and defined blacks as 3/5ths of a person. Actually it went even further and defined people who could vote as white, male property owners.

What side are you on?

[obsrvr524]

It’s pretty much absurd what you’re arguing obsrvr.

The constitution let no women vote and defined blacks as 3/5ths of a person. Actually it went even further and defined people who could vote as white, male property owners.

What side are you on?

All of those issues went to the US Supreme Court long ago and were corrected. What does any of that have to do with the separation of church and state? Nothing.

[Mowk]

It is "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion". That is what you don't seem to accept.

I feel the door swings both ways. They are one and the same. Any relationship with a god is first and foremost a personal one, and is one of belief which is not synonymous with truth, often beliefs bare little resemblance to truth.

To compare the originally adopted pledge of allegiance and it's wording to the currently adopted phrasing does demonstrate some historical evolution. But Religion, and therefore Any God, getting wrapped up into any political ceremony or governmental practice is not an example of a separation of church and state.

Abrahamic religions trace their roots back to a common historical figure. Yet each of the three have used a different name for their deity. For christians it is "God" for Judaism it is YHWH and to Islam it is Allah. Are these the names of different deities? Of different deities, they appear to have evolved into quite distinctive practices and do not consider them to be the same deity. To mention endorse one over the other does appear to be the demonstration of a bias for one religion over another. It is interesting to note that the indigenous inhabitants of the land upon which this nation occupies held polytheistic beliefs.

So yeah there is quite a trove of observable evidence the religious right has and continues to hold great influence over both of our currently dominant political parties. Held influence over past political parties and violates a foundation of a country based on a separation of church and state. But a good majority of our population does practice some form of organized religion and that will exert it's influence.

Your OP on the separation of church and state was ill formed and randomly supported with a fair degree of unsubstantiated opinion. And is a far more complicated issue then you eluded too, with your example of a single current affair regardless the mainstream media coverage.

It an issue being ramrodded down all of America in the taking advantage of circumstance. Truth has been around for a long long time we are just now beginning to discover it. There is no rush, unless perhaps it is opportunity for agenda's to be served.

[Mowk]

On a post note. I find your sig rather Orwellian in itself, Big brother represented in it's singular individualistic example of ignorance playing the authority and attempting to dictate what is true. Fascist Dictators do that too. So too do bullies.

"We the People" don't. This nation's founders didn't either. well, yeah, they did but they were intent on the pursuit of something closer to perfection.

The obstacle faced is it doesn't look the same between us. Yeah, I'm still thinking the Supreme Court of the land has some say in the matter.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It is "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion". That is what you don't seem to accept.

I feel the door swings both ways. They are one and the same. Any relationship with a god is first and foremost a personal one,

Note the shift from religion to the relationship with God. Those are not the same category, the latter generally, but not always, a tiny subset of the former. Religions are extremely social phenomena, even the most secular of religions - certain strands of Buddhism - still notice that meditation improves in the presence of other meditators and in dynamic interactions with masters. Religions bind families, but also bind beyond family, creating values to unify people (and also to unify them against others). This can all be for good or ill, but religions is absolutely not a private matter only for most people.