Random
Source Code
Random
Originally cited in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, this small footnote in history was used by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v Board of Education (1947) to justify that:
"(New Jersey) Cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. While we do not mean to intimate that a state could not provide transportation only to children attending public schools, we must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New Jersey against state-established chirches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief."
(From Black's Majority Opinion).
However, according to his biographer Roger K. Newman, Black wrote this opinion not to protect the use of public funds so much as to undercut the true meaning of the religion clauses within the constitution. It is also possible that, as a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, Black had a fear of Catholic influence within the United States and taylored his decision to prevent any further Catholics from influencing the course of the country.
The original meaning of the religious clause of the constitution was such that the United States federal government would not set up a church such that all citizens were required to be a follower or in essence be treated as a second class citizen (it should be noted, however, that at the time of the Bill of Rights some states did have individual state religions). Now, the meaning of the religious clause has been destorted such that the people do not have a freedom to practice their religion but have an imagined freedom from being exposed to anyone else's religion. It is especially shown where persons of a Christian upbringing voice opposition to abortion or gay marriage, with the 'sepertation of church and state' group shouting that an elected individual should leave any sort of religious upbringing they had at home and make decisions with a complete lack of religious influence at all.
Furthermore, the appointment of officials such as John Roberts to the Supreme Court has shown that religious litmus tests have become more important than the candidates actual qualifications. This act of testing a candidate or appointee for their religious belief is a much more direct violation of the constitution than the imagined 'Seperation of Church and State' freedom. Article VI, clause 3 of the constitution specifically states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; _but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States._
I'll give anyone $1000 if they can show me where "Seperation of Church and State" is written in the constitution.
Dunce: There's no Seperation of Church and State in this country anymore.
Dr. Levin: So how WAS church this past weekend?
Dunce: I don't go to church. I'm agnostic.
Levin: And you still have your job, and are allowed to participate in elections and such like that, dispite being agnostic?
Dunce: Yeah, what's your point?
Levin: Point is there is no established religion in this country. NOW GET OFF THE PHONE YA BIG JERK!
22👍 23👎
The division of biased religious perspective from a government catering to all beliefs. This is contradicted in Bush's ban on abortion for everyone of every religion in the United States that derives from his christian beliefs.
For all to be equal and happy in a democratic system, we must have separation of Church and State in the government
25👍 29👎
Separation of Church and State is an ideology protecting religious freedom by ensuring government does not interfere to favor or disfavor private religious establishments so long as they practice without violating another's individual rights. The clause also protects from churches and other religious organizations interfering with government practices in an attempt to remove religious freedom so as to favor their beliefs. This clause proposes a metaphorical wall between government and religious establishments, unlike the one-way street idea proposed by fanatical religious theocrats.
Wiccan: You can't limit my freedom to worship in peace. We have separation of Church and State.
Radical Fundamentalist: No you don't! That clause represents a one-way street. Government is not to interfere with churches but churches can control the government and limit the rights of non-believers!
Wiccan: I hear Iran is lovely this time of year.
45👍 12👎
Perhaps the most ignored and misunderstood part of the 1st Amendment, even the whole damn Constitution. This concept derives from the establishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment.
The government CANNOT give preference to any religion, yet we still have "in God We Trust" on our currency, "One nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, and legal marriage rights are dictated by the Church.
There may be no restrictions on religion.... well almost. Numerous Supreme Court cases have allowed for some restrictions (no polygamy for mormons, no peyote use for some native american religions, and no animal sacrifices for some religions, i guess) but these restrictions are for EVERYONE, not just against a particular group (so it's technically not discrimination).
Essentially, people are free to BELIEVE what they want (even if they aren't allowed to PRACTICE their beliefs in some cases) and people are free FROM religion.
Thank God (Ironic? I think not) that there is such a thing as Separation of Church and State. Imagine being forced to believe a certain way or being punished by law for believing something.
Marriage is both a legal and religious institution. WTF? Don't we have separation of church and state?
Guess what? I believe that a giant spaghetti monster sits on a throne of meatballs and laughs at all of humanity's follies. I can believe what I want.
25👍 12👎
A person (in most cases a supporter of the Religious Right) who intentionally ignores the 1st amendment to advanced a certain religious groups moral agenda over another. Ignore the fact the 1st amendment clearly states that the U.S. can not endorse religion.
Clearly some one who cherry-picks the Constitution without any respect for the constitution as a whole.
These type of people tend to support or smpythise with Social Authoritarian(a.k.a. Radical Social Conservatives)
People who can't fully be trust with the reigns of Government.
Mike Huckabee is Separation of Church and State Denier
73👍 34👎
When an airhead/paid escort gets elected to government without ever reading the Constitution.
Lauren Boebert: THIS IS AMERICA! WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION!
The Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Lauren Boebert: "I'm so tired of this separation of church and state junk!"
43👍 17👎
When one's genitals stick to their leg while sitting in a hot/humid atmosphere and a brief spreading of the legs is necessary. Separation can be accomplished with the mode stated above or manually(and more obvious) with your hands.
After getting out of the car during a five hour road trip, separating church and state was necessary for little Muhammad due to hot and humid conditions.
36👍 6👎