The Separation of Church and State, Violations of the First Amendment

[nnjhansen]

Your ignorance of US history is astounding. Amazing how you do not mention that the very Congress that approved the 1st Amendment opened every session with a prayer, that they requested Pres Washington "recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God," and that they created a judicial oath that concludes, "So help me God."

Acknowledging God is NOT unconstitutional.

[iversonmatthew]

I am soooo with you!

[BriarsandBrambles]

–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

[gunzrkewl]

I bet many of you athiests think that the establishment clause is supposed to promote athiesm too. LOL!

[s7cJeremy]

This video cracks me up. You talk about Christians’ ignorance regarding America’s history, but the earliest history you bring up in the video is the 1950’s? Maybe you’re ignorant to the fact that our country was founded in 1776, the constitution was ratified in 1789, and that the first amendment was ratified in 1791 at a time when states did have official churches.

[s7cJeremy]

@s7cJeremy

The states were nervous that the federal government would take away their official churches because the 14th amendment did not yet exist, and Thomas Jefferson famously settled the Danbury Baptist’s fears in the letter that coined the phrase “separation of church and state” by assuring them that the first amendment protected them from the federal government taking away their right to official state churches.

[s7cJeremy]

@s7cJeremy The actual first amendment places two restrictions on the government: Do not establish a national religion and do not prohibit the free exercise of religion. It places absolutely no restrictions on the church. The “separation of church and state” (which puts equal weight on the words church and state) meaning adopted by liberals ignores the free exercise clause and is not in the context in which Jefferson originally said it.

[s7cJeremy]

@s7cJeremy When you say that your freedoms are being taken away because the word “God” is printed on a coin, you’re just being a cry-baby. No one is forcing you to attend a religious event, to pray, or even to acknowledge God. It’s just artwork. It’s not a law forcing you to do anything. You sound like a little kid wining to his mommy that his brother won’t quit looking at him.

[s7cJeremy]

@s7cJeremy But hey, you must know better than me because you had an angry look on your face and you dropped the f-bomb. Keep it classy, and I’ll just let the facts speak for themselves.

[BlackRepublican2010]

Read any of American founding documents. The phrase "Separation of Church & State" At all.This is an outright liberal lie.The first Amendment means that the US cannot declare Islam, Christianity, etc. the official religion of the land & force everyone to join.It does not prohibit using tax payer dollars for religious institutions or restrict public displays of religion."Our Rights are endowed by our Creator". The Ten Commandments sit outside the Supreme Court.

[romansten9]

How to believe the Myth of Separation: 1. Mis-Interpret a letter by Jefferson 2. Blatantly mis-interpret the 1st Amendment 3. Disregard Congressional record & Court records<1900 4. Read nothing written<1900 5. Believe all teachers&media 6. Ignore numerous mixing of church/state by Founders 7. Get all info 2nd hand, rather than the source 8. Mis-Interpret the Treaty of Tripoli&a small selection of founder's quotes 9. Use revised history books=God/faith have been omitted. 10. Ignore reason

[adlerbr12]

No to a mosque close to ground zero.

[Zunile03scape]

Add to your argument how these phases used in oaths violate Article 6 of the US Constitution as well.

The last line of 6 calls for no religious test to ever be used as a qualification for public office or trust. The God phases violate this Article on multiple levels when you read it.

[cosmicjackpot]

good work

[suburbanindie]

silentskeptic, you will be happy to learn the National Day of Prayer has been deemed unconstitutional.

[asilentskeptic]

@suburbanindie We will definitely find out what happens now. The appeals process has not been completed, and Obama still did his declaration even though it was ruled unconstitutional.

[1954phyllis]

@suburbanindie So how come homosexuals can march in the streets but the National Day of Prayer is deemed unconstiutional. Really the government has no right to tell the American people how to worship since separation of church and state is only a myth.

[1954phyllis]

@suburbanindie So how come homosexuals can march in the streets but the National Day of Prayer is deemed unconstiutional. Really the government has no right to tell the American people how to worship since separation of church and state is only a myth. It seems to me that you atheists are trying to erase God from America.

[theRevolutionof2012]

@1954phyllis Homosexuals do not march under the title National march of Homosexuals. Congress and the President do not recognize the march as a National Day. National Day of Prayer is currently recognized by Congress and the President. You seem very ignorant.

[suburbanindie]

@1954phyllis How is separation of church and state a myth? Did you even watch the video at all?

You're right, the government has no right to tell the American people how to worship. You forget that they also do not have a right to tell them IF they should worship.

[1954phyllis]

@suburbanindie The government also has no right to tell Christian students that they have no right to thank God before the eat lunch. They have no right to tell students that they can not mention God or Jesus at commencement ceremonies. If someone is offended by that person mentioning the name of Jesus who bloody cares. I don't like the fact that the majority of movies now say God's name in vain. I have to deal with it though.The entire thing seems biased.

[suburbanindie]

@1954phyllis The government doesn't tell people how or who to pray to. They aren't barring religion, they just are not advocating anything at all. Why does the neutral stance that the government has sworn to take on religion for the past 200 some odd years offend hard right Christians who think it's their way or the highway?

The government has neither banned nor enforced religion in history, and should never take a stance.

[1954phyllis]

@suburbanindie I strongly disagree.

[suburbanindie]

@1954phyllis The beauty of the United States is that you can pray any day at all, or never pray. It is my right as an atheist to never have to be forced to pray just as much as it is your right as a Christian to pray any day you like.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[1954phyllis]

@suburbanindie Before 1964 the Bible was read in schools across this land. Even prayer was allowed in the schools. Why should evolution, Harry Potter be allowed to be taught in schools while the Bible isn't tolerated.

[suburbanindie]

@1954phyllis Because private schools exist, and other religions exist, and we respect other people instead of shoving our feeble-minded opinions down people's throats and respect them enough to come to their own conclusions, rather than being force-fed fairy tales.

[1954phyllis]

@suburbanindie Excuse me but the public schools have been shoving the fairy tale of evolution down the throats of students for a long time. We Christians just know the factr of the matter and that is that God created all of creation. Yes indeed, the Bible should be taught right along side of that theory of evolution.

[suburbanindie]

@1954phyllis If you think the world is 6,000 years old and was created in 7 days, that's your problem. Why even go to the hospital or the doctor when you get sick? Just pray. LOL Oh, and do not procreate, thanks.

[GarbageState]

@suburbanindie well said!

just returned from a state/county hearing. i can't believe there's no separation of church and state in the u.s. the judge asked to raise the right hand and swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth... and then mumbled "so help you god". that was pathetic. at least there was no bibles on the tables. how can ignorant judges be trusted to make important decisions.

[FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7]

@1954phyllis the bible is bs

[1954phyllis]

@suburbanindie Who in this world has tried to force you to pray. Seems to me that it is you sorry atheists that are trying to striip away all of the christians rights to worship the way they choose to. It is atheists that have removed the Bible out of schools while allowing that fairy tale evolution in.

[1954phyllis]

@suburbanindie I believe that you need to read the constitution. The government also has no rigth to tax churches and tell the preachers what to preach about. That is communis.. If atheists and God haters dont want to worship then they dont have to.

[TheRedneckAtheist]

Thumbs up in 50 seconds, fucking win bro!

[nitewolf89]

so u atheists r admitting that atheism is a religion? prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[jacobew2000]

If you can show me where in the constitution that "separation of church and state" is listed, I will shut up. But since its not in there, then would you please stop trying to remove our heritege from our society??!!!!

[asilentskeptic]

That particular line is not listed, but the First Amendment is pretty clear. Would you please stop trying to remove our liberties from our society?

[priestessofair]

Check the Bill of RIGHTS

[DuggabbooDC]

Heritage? The Founding Fathers were mostly NOT Christian.

[allgoo19]

@jacobew2000

"where in the constitution that "separation of church and state" is listed,.."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof," says so in the 1st amendment.

Do you expect people to repeat it every time they bring up the matter? Isn't it easier by shorten it?

If you don't like the description "separation of church and state", how would you describe it?

[jacobew2000]

@allgoo19,

The problem is that liberals often forget the "...prohibiting the free excercise thereof." part of it.

And im sorry but in their writings, most of the founding fathers believed that there was a god, the debate then was mostly about which denomination was correct, and to prevent a specific denomination from becoming the "official" church. They would be shocked at how hostile the govt has become toward religion today!

[allgoo19]

@jacobew2000

"The problem is that liberals often ..."

If you don't like the description "separation of church and state", how would you describe it?

Answer?

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 "Freedom of Religion".

[asilentskeptic]

@jacobew2000 In what way has the government restricted the free exercise? Kids can pray in school, it just can't be school sponsored prayer. The problem is that the Christian majority feels that not being allowed to have their religion prominently displayed is restricting their "free exercise".

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 I'd desribe is as the "Establishment Clause" or "Religious Freedom Clause". Liberals like the term "Separation of Church and State" because it puts equal emphasis on the words church and state, although the first amendment places no restrictions on the church. The first amendment tells the federal gov't to stay out of church business, but it doesn't tell the church to stay out of gov't business. It's a "Freedom OF religion" clause, not "Freedom FROM religion".

[allgoo19]

@s7cJeremy

"it doesn't tell the church to stay out of gov't .."

1st amendment, "Congress shall establish no law representing an establishment of religion.."

It's contrary to your comment.

Why this was placed in very first of the bill of rights. Look at the situation they saw in France where the revolution was about to happen because of dominance of religious power(75% of the land was owned by the churches).

Once given a permission, you know where it's going.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 Exactly, it says "Congress shall not make a law". It does not say "The church shall not". There are no limits set on the church in that clause whatsoever as the amendment is establishing the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. It isn't establishing freedom FROM anything except for government interfering in the church, the press, our individual speech, etc.

[allgoo19]

@s7cJeremy

"it says "Congress shall not make a law". It does not say "The church shall not"..."

Do you mean the constitution actually saying, "The church should make laws, shuold run the gov."?

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 I'm saying that the constitution does not say "The church shall not" to anything. The first amendment is not there to put any restrictions on the church. It is only there to put restrictions on the government. This is why "Separation of Church and State" is a misleading interpretation of the first amendment because if you only heard that term and never actually read the amendment itself, you would think that it was a two-way wall of separation rather than the one-way wall that it is.

[allgoo19]

@s7cJeremy

"first amendment is not there to put any restrictions on the church.."

Do you mean gov. allow religion to practice human sacrifice, child molestation without any restriction if that's the way they do?

By the way, who else shares the same view as you do with avobe certain level of credentials? Can you show me?

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 Supreme Court Justices themselves.

The term has been used and defended heavily by the Court, but is not unanimously held. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the majority of states did have "official" churches at the time of the First Amendment's adoption and that James Madison, not Jefferson, was the principal drafter.

[allgoo19]

@s7cJeremy

I'm taking your coment one at a time.

It'll become confusing.

Learn to make it fit in 500.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19

219 years of history is hard to fit in 500 words. Maybe if I thought American history started in 1960, my responses would be a little shorter.

[allgoo19]

@s7cJeremy

"219 years of history is hard to fit .."

I explained previously which you didn't reply or maybe I missed it.

Look where it's going if people allow religion to have their way in politics by looking into France before the revolution. That's what fathers of this country learned.

If you don't learn, you'll keep going the same circle over and over.

Where in the world religiously dominated country has been and is so successfull now?

Can you name any of them?

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 As it was originally intended, the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion (but not individual state religions). France had an absolute monarchy. The constitution prohibits this, but it protects religious expressions such as the word "God" on a coin, the 10 commandments hanging in a courthouse, or a religious statue.

It even protects the right of a mosque to be built at ground zero, although that won't reflect well on the image of the muslim religion.

[allgoo19]

@s7cJeremy

"France had an absolute monarchy.."

Actually churches had more power and wealth than the king.

"it protects religious expressions such as the word "God" on a coin, the 10 commandments hanging in a courthouse, or a religious statue.."

I'd like to see the actual words in constitution about this claim.

And don't forget to answer,

"Where in the world religiously dominated country has been and is so successfull now?"

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 My response was that the U.S. isn't a religiously dominated country in the sense that the church runs the government as it was in France. There's a difference between religion ruling and the government observing religious symbolism.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 Now if you're asking for an example of a country that wasn't run by the church, but did have leaders in government who were Christians that opened sessions of congress with prayer and placed emphasis on the Bible in their offiicial activities, I would point you to the fouding of the United States of America and the great challenges they overcame breaking from the British government.

[allgoo19]

@s7cJeremy

"I would point you to the fouding of the United States .."

Don't pretend that you didn't understand my question and turn the point to other direction.

You know that's not what I meant by saying "religiously dominated country".

I can name a few that are not successful.

Iran, Iraq, Mexico etc.

Secular and successful countries: most of the western nations and some Asian contries.

Religiously dominated and successful? Answer?

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 I left 2 reply comments. You must have only read my second one. My answer is that I don't know of any religiously dominated and successful countries, but that's not what I'm saying the US is or was meant to be.

The U.S. isn't a religiously dominated country in the sense that the church runs the government as it was in France. There's a difference between religion ruling and the government observing religious symbolism and recognizing God's intervention in their history.

[allgoo19]

@s7cJeremy

"U.S. isn't a religiously dominated country in the sense .."

And you still can't connect the dots between "Separation of church and state" and "US not being religiously dominated"?

I give you a hint.

France didn't have the consitution says, "We'll separate the religions and gov." like we do in US.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 When the Constitution was ratified, Articles 1 through 3 set up a government with 3 branches creating a system of checks and balances that would prevent the kind of government France had. France didn’t have this in their constitution. At this time, individual states had official churches. 2 years later, the first amendment was ratified as the founders recognized certain unalienable rights that they already enjoyed, but wanted to make sure weren’t taken away in the future.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 (Please note this reply took 2 comments, so be sure to read the other first)

One of these rights was the freedom of religion. Please note that 6 of the 13 states still had official churches at this time, congress still had official prayers, and the capital buildings were still used as churches on Sundays. This did not change when the first amendment was ratified, and in fact didn’t restrict the promotion of religion by states for another 150 years.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 So short answer: I connect the dots between "US isn't religiously dominated" and "System of Checks and Balances". The "Separation of Church and State" isn't necessary to accomplish that.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 Incorporation of the Establishment Clause in 1947, was tricky and has been subject to much critique steming from the fact that the it was intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments of religion that existed at the time of the founding (at least six states had established religions at the founding) – a fact conceded by even those members of the Court who believe the Establishment Clause was made applicable to the states through incorporation.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 Critics have also argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to incorporate only individual rights found in the Bill of Rights; the Establishment Clause - unlike the Free Exercise Clause (which critics readily concede protects individual rights) - does not purport to protect individual rights.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 No, I don't mean they can commit crimes without any restriction. In cases against polygamy, the Supreme Court has ruled that Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) incorporated certain select provisions. However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.

So while you guys are talking about ingorance of American history, you don't realize that it's only since the 1960's that the meaning of the First Amendment has been altered to be interpreted this way, mainly in 5-4 Supreme Court decisions.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 I was drawing emphasis on the "make no law" part because that's the only restriction placed on the government, and it's just to Congress. If the President wants to call the nation to prayer, his right to religious expression and right to free speech given in the first amendment allows him to do so. He is part of the Executive branch, not congress, and that wouldn't be passing a law requiring you to do so.

[s7cJeremy]

@allgoo19 You are not given a freedom FROM religion in the constitution because that freedom would encroach on another individual's right to religious expression and right to free speech, even if that person is the president, a judge hanging the 10 Commandments in his own chamber, etc. The first amendment only bars congress from passing religious mandated laws. It doesn't prohibit members of congress or the government from expressing their religious beliefs.

[xxDogsoldierxx]

dollar bills dont specify a particular God so it doesnt go against the constitution.

[asilentskeptic]

It doesn't matter whether or not it lists a specific deity, it's still an establishment of religion.

[TheSilentbird]

...also the "G" is capitalized making it refer to the Christian God.. so double whammy on the currency.. if it was lower case "g" it would then refer to any deity..

[asilentskeptic]

Even a lower case "g" would be a violation, as it holds up a monotheistic belief system as opposed to other forms (pantheists, atheists, etc).

[s7cJeremy]

@asilentskeptic The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence (A unanimous declaration of the 13 States) contain the phrases, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and, "endowed by their Creator". The Declaration is then concluded with, "A firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." If the founding fathers intended a complete separation of church and state, they violated their intentions from day 1 of the United State's existence.

[jacobew2000]

@asilentskeptic,

According to the Court of appeals, they sited that it wasnt a violation an establishment of religion, to have it on currency, pledge, etc, since it served as a way to "unite" the nation under its proud history.

So you athiests are legally wrong now!

[un0RRS]

I stumbled this. This is one of the greatest skeptic atheist/agnostic videos on the internet, short, well informed, and well worded. instant fan.

[xxDogsoldierxx]

I disagree

[s7cJeremy]

@un0RRS Well informed? He calls Christians ignorant about history, but the only history he speaks of in his cry-baby rant is in the 1950's...

[Sleeko11]

I wonder if the asshats that voted for a national day of prayer, ever thought we would extent that courtesy to Islam.

[Xirbtt]

Very good video. I was interested in those dates and wanted to look them up. Thanks for the info!

[TheKaijuSciFiGuy]

The intention of the First Amendment was not to prohibit freedom of religion but rather to prohibit the country being run as a theocracy.

[s7cJeremy]

@TheKaijuSciFiGuy It was actually intended to keep the federal government from interfering in the official state churches.

[SicaGR]

@s7cJeremy Actually you have that in reverse. It was to keep religious views out politics.

[GOODGUUY]

Amendment I

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.

prohibit

to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law

Why are there activists who fight to keep localized pray groups out of schools after class hours.

???

[debaser71]

only if they are SCHOOL LEAD or infringe on school time ...

the 1st amendment also talks about 'no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion' where 'RESPECTING' means 'in regards to'

[s7cJeremy]

@debaser71 Respecting = Regarding. We're talking old-english language here, common! You're trying to read the statement using a mondern-day slang interpretation.

[Xirbtt]

They shouldn't have to prohibit it because it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I'm afraid schools are here because of our government and therefore cannot respect any religion in that school.

It's simple, you just ignored the first part.

[priestessofair]

Check the bill of rights. Public schools are under federal funding and therefor subject to separation of church and state, Would you feel the same way if a pagan group wanted to organize inside a school. Neither are acceptable

[MasterMark123]

My 2nd viewing of you and again I like your style. I am just became your newest subscriber .

[kidd5290]

you make good points, yet there are some that would'nt agree with your views. first off i believe in a higher power wheather it be God, Kami, Allah (christian, shinto, islam) i believe that religion as has no play in politics and should not be pressured on other of different faiths. i have atheist and agnostic friends, yet their are some atheist that like to trample on people of faith and what they believe in (not saying you are one). sorry to make this long.

[asilentskeptic]

Some atheists are quite passionate in their fight against religion. Some would wish to make religion illegal, a view that I do not hold. What we can say and believe should be free and unrestricted as long as it does not harm anyone else. In the U.S. we have the right to believe (or not) without government support or regulation. With the introduction of religious statements, that disappears and one religious group can claim "official" status. (e.g. Claims that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation)

[kidd5290]

thank for the relpy man. and its true we are not a "Christian" country. we are a country of diverce beliefs. and thankyou for not ripping me a new one for my belief.

as they say live and let live.

[MasterMark123]

you must realize that having the majority of religious angst come down on we non believers is SO unbalanced on any playing field .. Religion is FORCED down our throats on a constant basis .. our only recourse is to be Firm in our response to counterbalance the weight..

[kidd5290]

mastermark123 i understand that thats why i tend to keep my beliefs to myself, hell i could care less if you praise to a naked statue of megan fox. the fact is you have to keep in mind that not all christains are gay bashers and religious nuts. but there are quite a alot of bad apples on both sides. people need to learn that others may not share the same views, but thats like leading a horse to water.

[Xirbtt]

"naked statue of megan fox"

eww, why would anyone do that?

[PineappleQTpie]

Why are you so angry and hostile towards God and religion, no where in the constitution does it mention a separation of church and state. The founders didn't mean that we should keep religion out of public life but that no one religion should be allowed to govern over all other. Who are we to start removing and amending what our forefathers struggled so hard to put together. Passion is good, but It is hard for me to take you seriously with all your anger and cursing, your lost plight saddens me

[fedos]

Did you even listen to this? It's obvious that you didn't; if you had, you would have heard the part about how the national day of prayer and "under god" stuff didn't come around until the 1950's, hardly the era of the Founding Fathers. You would also know that his tone is not angry at all.

[asilentskeptic]

Exactly. We are not attempting to remove what the founding fathers set in place. We are making sure that what they set down is upheld.

[ThorsDecree]

Obvious troll is obvious?

Sadly, not.

1) The US was founded as a SECULAR nation.

2) The phrase "In God We Trust" wasn't even added until 1956 (or around that time. I think the date's right....)

3) "Wall of separation" was Jefferson's idea, and the Supreme Court said that that means the government cannot give preferential treatment to one religion over another. This includes theism in general.

Learn some history before you start trying to cite it for your argument, or you'll look stupid. 'mmK?

[s7cJeremy]

@ThorsDecree "Wall of Separation" was Jefferson's idea in a letter he wrote in 1802 assuring the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would not take away their right to an "official state church". The phrase does not appear in the constitution, and Jefferson was not even a part of ratifying the first 10 amendments.

The liberal use of that phrase is out of context from Jefferson's original use.

[s7cJeremy]

@ThorsDecree In 1791 when the first amendment was ratified, states had official state churches. 11 years later when Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists, states still had official churches, and Jefferson wrote a letter assuring them that the federal government could not take that right away because of the first amendment.

[daeamarth]

What does exist is the following and it's the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." References to "God" on our currency, government ratified prayer days and so forth establish religion. It doesn't matter which. It matters if it does. It also doesn't matter what Jefferson wrote in personal letters. It matters what the Bill of Rights says and until it's amended it should stand.

[biped19]

I would like to invite government in my religious affairs and so should you. Hey You'll be sorry when the government is mandating everything you do. There is a reason why we have seperation of church and

state, to preserve both you morons. All this "in god we trust" is bullshit religious infiltration.

[JackJ1957]

Just two days after Jefferson wrote his letter citing the "wall of separation between Church and State," he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation's government was used for sacred purposes. As the Library of Congress website notes, "It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church."

[JackJ1957]

Proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from the fact he endorsed using government buildings for church meetings and services, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a church and to pay the salary of the church's clergy, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

[asilentskeptic]

Was the Kaskaskia Indian treaty the one signed in 1803? That was not signed by Jefferson. If there is one, let me know! I would be interested!

The reference to the United Brethren is accurate though, and was in fact signed by Washington and Adams as well!

P.S. Pulling references from a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court case is always fun! Wallace vs. Jaffree, I believe!

[JackJ1957]

The words "separation" "Church" & "State" do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

The phrase actually comes from a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists. He told them that no particular Christian denomination was going to have a monopoly in government. His words, "wall of separation between Church and State," were not written to remove all religious practice from government or civic settings, but to prohibit the domination of particular religious sects.

[asilentskeptic]

Can you find any specific religious statement or stance that would not, in some way, give preference to one type of belief (monotheism being predominant) over another belief (polytheism, pantheism) or even a lack of belief?

Yes, those specific words do not appear in the Constitution. At the same time, the best way to see the intent of the founding fathers is to look at their own writings, hence the popularity of Thomas Jefferson's letter and the phrase found therein.

[s7cJeremy]

@asilentskeptic When the first amendment was ratified, states had official state churches. 11 years later when Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he coined the phrase "separation of church and state", states still had official churches, and Jefferson wrote the letter assuring them that the federal government could not take that right away because of the first amendment.

[brutus149]

God on money was first put there around the time of the Civil War. It was in reference to the Christian God.

I don't really get why so many Christians think that an umbrella endorsement of Christianity is ok, but more specific endorsements of a particular sect of Christians is not ok. It's the same thing to anyone that's not a Christian, but too many American Christians don't get that.

[asilentskeptic]

If the money were to refer to anything else (Allah, Buddha, etc.) there would be a huge cry of protest from Christians. We don't see that outcry about the current state of affairs because it leans towards their particular belief systems. Some Christians actually do think about the first amendment and fight to keep religion out of government, but it is all too rare!

[shellieida]

The following is in excerpt from a Letter written by Abraham Lincoln to a mother that lost 5 sons to the Civil War:

'I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.'

[asilentskeptic]

I can show you many letters from many American leaders. Some contain strong religious sentiments, many do not. Some even have anti-religious sentiments (Thomas Jefferson springs to mind) Every example does nothing to remove the first amendment or the rights it gives to every American citizen.

[s7cJeremy]

@asilentskeptic Thomas Jefferson only comes to mind if you're reading second-hand information about what he wrote rather than reading the entire letters themselves.

[Jcutta1113]

It does not matter what an idividual leader or person thinks about religion in the scope of the rights we have been promised by the founders. I could right a letter without any mention of god in it but would that change someones view of the first ammendment because I didnt mention god no. so If "W" wants to say god this god that it does not change the fact we have freedom of and freedom from religion in America

[stuffisgd]

The clergy, fucking up our system of secular ideals for 54 years and counting. assholes!

5/5

[rogersla]

Thanks for posting.

[justiniscoolohyea]

HELL YEA!!!

[Xinths]

I love this video, though I do not live in America I've always though it silly to have a single religion dictate most peoples lives through law, let alone constantly being shoved down peoples throats from an early age.

[avagdu]

Just to be precise the relationship of our rights and the founding fathers is correlation but not causation.

[justintempler]

Pledge Of Allegiance from BELLS Of SAINT MARY'S

circa 1945

watch?v=l7Sq_U44gko

[justintempler]

If Christians want us to respect their religion then we also need to respect the Muslims. It's a slippery slope.

"Council Member Robert Jackson of Manhattan, who is Muslim, and 12 co-sponsors introduced a resolution this year calling on the state to require that New York City students be given days off for the Muslim holidays of Eid Ul-Fitr, typically in October, and Eid Ul-Adha, which falls in December this year."

All or none, I go with none.

[asilentskeptic]

I agree completely, but I may be willing to run with all (and by all I mean every obscure religious holiday under the sun) until people realize the absurdity of the situation and choose none out of frustration.

All or none should be how things are played out, without preferential treatment for one group over another, but we do not live in a world where that is always feasible, so none is usually the best option.

[justintempler]

Christians forget:

Luke 20:25And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Christians,

Keep your damn religion out of our government.

[TolsmaLMC]

Doesn't everything belong to God?

[asilentskeptic]

You would have to show that he existed before asking that questions. You would also have to show that the "god" that exists is your God.

If you are a Christian, then the answer is yes. "All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made". John 1:3. If you can get that to jive with Luke 20:25, you have some mental gymnastic abilities that are astounding.

I can think of a few groups (both religious and non-religious) that would disagree with that assertion.

[TolsmaLMC]

I was responding to Justin. He was quoting scripture. He seems to believe the part that he quoted, yet he wants us to keep our religion out of the government. It sounded contradictory to me.

[ojnabs]

Prove to me there is a God then I will believe that everything belongs to him

[TolsmaLMC]

I was responding to Justin. He was quoting scripture. He seems to believe the part that he quoted, yet he says he wants us to keep our religion out of the government. It sounded contradictory to me.

[justintempler]

Moi? I'm a die hard atheist.

I'm just pointing out that Christians using their own scripture should mind their own business.

[Ruhe47]

I have noticed that some atheists know scripture better than most Christians. It always brings a smile to hear a Christian out-quoted in the Bible verse department.

[Jcutta1113]

I know the bible very well I was rasied catholic and went to catholic school and have read the bible more then once. I can quote with the best and its always nice to see a christian dumbfounded by my knowledge of their holy book. I think that you can not correctly argue your point without having substancial knowledge of the opposing view

[s7cJeremy]

@justintempler That statement was about whether it was right for Christians to pay taxes. That statement was more telling Christians to be involved in governement then it was telling them not to be involved.

[justintempler]

@s7cJeremy ummm, no. It was about whose authority they should follow. God or goverment.

"They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor."

P.S. It's kind of humourous that you thought that the verse was about telling Jews to be more involved in Roman government.

[s7cJeremy]

@justintempler And his answer was that you should follow both. Who would you consider more involved with the government? Someone who paid taxes or someone who didn't pay taxes?

[s7cJeremy]

@justintempler P.S. It's kind of humorous that you found it humorous that I thought the verse was about telling Jews to be more involved in Roman government.

I didn't say Jesus was telling them to be MORE involved. I simply said Jesus told them they were to be involved, ie. they were not above the government because they were Christians.

[justintempler]

@s7cJeremy Now your getting lost in an argument.

The original statement was a trap. designed to make Jesus choose one authority over the other.

It had nothing to do with how involved/or not involved they were in governemnt.