- #1
Zero
Discuss...
(Hell, at least it isn't another thread about Iraq or Israel!)
(Hell, at least it isn't another thread about Iraq or Israel!)
You'd be surprised.Originally posted by FZ+
I don't think anybody is going to disagree with this...
Anybody want to play devil's advocate?
Originally posted by FZ+
I don't think anybody is going to disagree with this...
Anybody want to play devil's advocate?
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Most people assume that Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and Adams were christians...but were they?
You wouldn't know it, to hear some people talk. They think that because the majority is some sort of Christian, the government should recognise their faith as somehoe superior to the rest.Originally posted by Tog_Neve
And Zero:
The statement that America is a Christian Nation does not have any bearing on the government. When I think of "Christian Nation" I think of it more demographically than anything else. Our gment is not oriented Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other for that matter... but is religious neutral. Which is as it should be.
??Originally posted by russ_watters
You'd be surprised.
The explication of the religion clauses by the scholars has followed a restrained sense of their meaning. Story, who thought that ''the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice,''6 looked upon the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. ''The situation . . . of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.''7
''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.''8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment.9
This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education,10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general.11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position.12
Toldya. That attitude is far more common than you may think.Originally posted by damgo
??
Tog... [/url]
The separation of church and state refers to the principle that the government and religious institutions should be kept separate and independent from each other. This means that the government cannot establish or promote any particular religion, and individuals are free to practice their own religion without interference from the government.
Yes, the separation of church and state is still very relevant today. While it is a concept that has been debated and challenged throughout history, it is a crucial part of maintaining a democratic and diverse society. It protects the freedom of religion for all individuals and prevents the government from imposing any particular religious beliefs on its citizens.
One example is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion and prohibits the establishment of a national religion. Another example is the exclusion of religious activities in public schools, such as prayer or religious instruction, to ensure that all students are treated equally regardless of their religious beliefs.
Yes, there are often challenges to the separation of church and state, particularly in cases where religion and politics intersect. Some argue that the government should have a role in promoting and upholding certain moral values based on religious beliefs. Others believe that the separation of church and state is being eroded in certain areas, such as the use of religious symbols in government buildings or the influence of religious groups on political decisions.
The separation of church and state can have an impact on scientific research, particularly in areas that may conflict with religious beliefs. For example, the teaching of evolution in schools has been a contentious issue as it conflicts with some religious beliefs. However, the separation of church and state also ensures that scientific research is not limited or restricted by religious doctrines, allowing for the pursuit of knowledge and advancements in various fields.