the separation of church and state

[Anonymous]

I am wondering how many people know the concept of separation of church and state.
The only political tie in writing about the subject is a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a friend stating his stance.
What "law" do Americans have that describes and defines the idea? And, how do you feel about it?
Open for discussion

[jsteele]

First question, are you a witch? I ask because the last person who didn't seem to understand this was widely believed to have been a witch at one time.

Second question, have you heard of the US constitution? If so, are you aware that it has occasionally been amended? Are you further aware that almost immediately after its adoption, ten amendments that have become known as the Bill of Rights were introduced and later ratified? The first of these is called the 1st Amendment (yes, I realize this is all very complicated). The 1st Amendment begins this way:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The phrase "separation of church and state" was famously used by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. But, the "concept" of separation of church and state clearly exists within the 1st Amendment. Jefferson's letter was a clarification of the intent of the amendment.

[Anonymous]

no, I am not a witch. And Yes, I know the Bill of Rights, however, in its statement, "congress shall in no way impose" shows that in no way will the government tell a religious organization what to do within reason, so long as they do not break the law. In that, nowhere does it state that church shouldn't get involved with politics. The forefathers prayed before a session of congress and prayed about certain issues as a whole. Looking for divine direction. Today, it has become a mortal sin when a religious organization gives political opinions or if a community wishes to open a session with prayer, people get upset and shout "separation"
From a purely scientific research approach, where do you stand on the issue and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no, I am not a witch. And Yes, I know the Bill of Rights, however, in its statement, "congress shall in no way impose" shows that in no way will the government tell a religious organization what to do within reason, so long as they do not break the law. In that, nowhere does it state that church shouldn't get involved with politics. The forefathers prayed before a session of congress and prayed about certain issues as a whole. Looking for divine direction. Today, it has become a mortal sin when a religious organization gives political opinions or if a community wishes to open a session with prayer, people get upset and shout "separation"
From a purely scientific research approach, where do you stand on the issue and why?

First off, you are using a bit of a strawman. No one here has argued that it is a mortal sin for religious organizations to give political opinions or that churches shouldn't be involved in politics. The opposition to formal prayer during political meetings is because to do so is to offer a de facto establishment of religion, something explicitly prohibited by the first amendment. Practically, you also open up a Pandora's box. Suppose a Christian prayer is offered before a meeting of Congress. If so requested, must they also honor all other prayer requests? If they refuse any requests, they are favoring one religion over another, something banned by the first amendment. If they acknowledge all requests, Congress will quickly grind to an even slower halt than it presently functions at as they are inundated with every belief system under the sun wanting a prayer offered.

There are many things our founding documents do not explicitly allow or prohibit. If we bind ourselves to only the strictest reading of the letter of the law, a whole host of issues come up, especially when dealing with documents 250 years old that are very difficult to change.

[Anonymous]

Herman Cain's belief that communities have the right to ban mosques, which I brought up in another thread, shows that there are many understandings of freedom of religion. I would say that each of us, to greater or lesser extent, believes it means that I have the right to do whatever I wish on religious issues. Unfortunately, what I wish and what you wish may contradict each other, as in the case of Cain's unwillingness to be his Muslim brothers' keeper.

[Anonymous]

As for prayer in public events:

Will I be allowed to offer a Voudou blessing at your kid's graduation? No? Then you don't get to offer Christian one there.

Done.


Can your church have religious opinions and get involved in politics?

Yes. Even if you are Fred Phelps, you will be protected by the Constitution. And if you want to run for office, you can do it. See Mike Huckabee.

[jsteele]

Actually, Congress opens each day with a prayer. There is a House of Representatives Chaplain: http://chaplain.house.gov/ and a Senate Chaplain: http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

So, the war on religion in politics is failing miserably. As the previous poster suggests, the opening prayer is normally not controversial as long as it is from a fairly watered-down Christian perspective. Occasionally, a not-so-watered down Christian fundamentalist makes the rounds and that may result in a raised eyebrow or two. But, not real controversy. However, when a Muslim gets invited to conduct the opening prayer, suddenly some people are not interested in mixing religion and politics:

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/2-lawmakers-spurn-Muslim-s-prayer-1108773.php

From a purely scientific research approach, I think those who emphasize "faith" probably will find themselves on the losing side.

Also, religious organizations state political opinions all the time. To prevent them from doing so would impinge upon their 1st Amendment rights (which, in addition to religious freedom, protects freedom of speech). The controversy is whether non-profit organizations -- which most churches are -- should be able to actively endorse candidates. That is a restriction upon all non-profits, many of which are not religious.

[Anonymous]

Actually a prayer in congress has a constitutional exception as ceremonial.

[Anonymous]

Separation of church and state is a significant oversimplification of the two religion clauses in the constitution: the free exercise clause, and the no-establishment-of-religion clause. (There are also some tag-alongs, such at the no-religious-qualification-for-office clause.)

The difficulty comes when people treat "separation of church and state" as the actual rule, when it just isn't. It's much more complicated.

[Anonymous]

OK. so when does the government get involved? when snake freaks and whodoo voodoo people extremists go to far and say they cast a spell to do harm on a person, does that constitute a threat even though religious belief?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK. so when does the government get involved? when snake freaks and whodoo voodoo people extremists go to far and say they cast a spell to do harm on a person, does that constitute a threat even though religious belief?

As we have seen in the case of Westboro at the Supreme Court, the issue is far from settled, and I doubt it will ever be totally clear. Our legal system is not based on the idea of absolute truth, but of tension between two sides, judged by humans trying their best to impartially apply laws that are often not completely clear and sometimes in conflict with each other.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:OK. so when does the government get involved? when snake freaks and whodoo voodoo people extremists go to far and say they cast a spell to do harm on a person, does that constitute a threat even though religious belief?

I believe casting spells is protected speech. Are you still sure you aren't a witch?

[Anonymous]

what is a witch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK. so when does the government get involved? when snake freaks and whodoo voodoo people extremists go to far and say they cast a spell to do harm on a person, does that constitute a threat even though religious belief?

Depends. Do those spells work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no, I am not a witch. And Yes, I know the Bill of Rights, however, in its statement, "congress shall in no way impose" shows that in no way will the government tell a religious organization what to do within reason, so long as they do not break the law. In that, nowhere does it state that church shouldn't get involved with politics. The forefathers prayed before a session of congress and prayed about certain issues as a whole. Looking for divine direction. Today, it has become a mortal sin when a religious organization gives political opinions or if a community wishes to open a session with prayer, people get upset and shout "separation"
From a purely scientific research approach, where do you stand on the issue and why?

I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but churches are free to get involved in politics whenever they want. However, most nonprofit organizations are not permitted to get involved in politics if they want to keep their nonprofit status. If a church decides that money is more important than being able to be politically involved (and most do), that is the church's decision. From a purely scientific research approach, of course.