posted                   

quote:

---

IMHO, the U.S. constitution prevents government from medling in churches' affairs. It does not prevent those with a religious viewpoint from attempting to have that viewpoint expressed somehow in the laws of their society.

---

Sweet William.
IMHO, is that in my holy opinion or humble?

Although I am not enough of a scholar to defend it, seperation of church and state does go beyond keeping government out of churches, it also keeps religion out of government.
It goes both ways.

[edit:I do agree that those with religious viewpoints can attempt to express them via laws.
But if it's strictly religious it should be struck down as unconstitional.]

[ July 31, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

The athiest have been trying to force their opinions and views on religion on everyone else. "seperation of church and state," is realitively new.

---

quote:

---

Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.

As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.

---

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

If he were truly serious about the thing, he would call for a constitutional ammendment.

---

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

So is individual freedom and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

---

Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Actually, the last three are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. That is unfortunate, but very important to remember.

---

quote:

---

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

---

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

How about powers not expressly reserved for the Fed or the States be granted to the PEOPLE, like the Constitution says? Let them choose, individually, who they may or may not marry.

---

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged |