borrofburi
New Member
Mostly irrelevant background information (you can skip this part!):
So I got this chain letter in my email the other day entitled "laus deo" in which it said, and I quote, "separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution." I thought I'd find all the errors and point them out; I did not, instead I linked to the snopes answer and said "only partially true" (curiously, they did not seem to care if it was true or not, because it "illustrated a point", though they never did say what point that was or why it was so valid that twisting the truth and even possibly outright lies were a good way to communicate it).
But in that quest to answer basic flaws, I decided I would address the idea that SoCaS denial by quoting the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." I figured I should anticipate any counter arguments and answer those, so I looked them up.
tl;dr someone emailed me something that said the separation of church and state doesn't exist, so I investigated.
Actually interesting bit for this thread (the only paragraph you *need* to read to contribute meaningfully):
It turns out, no surprise really, that these people (who deny separation of church and state is in the constitution) use a very strict definition of the establishment clause "congress shall make no law"; they essentially think that so long as congress doesn't ban a religion or officially declare christianity the religion of the USA, then the clause has not been violated. Granite statue of the ten commandments in the court room? Neither of those were violated, check. Prayer in the court room? Again, not violating the establishment clause, check. Endorsing christianity? Doesn't ban other religions, isn't official US religion, check. Giving massive amounts of money to christian churches? Doesn't prevent the free exercise of other religions, still isn't officially law-made US religion, check.
So, it looks like we all might have to get good at arguing law now, by which I mean understand all this and "educate" the SoCaS-deniers just as we must educate the creationists' distorted view of evolution into an accurate understanding.
tl;dr oi, just read the paragraph, but if you want a summary anyway (after having read it), here it is: these people argue for a very strict interpretation of both the establishment and free exercise clauses, insisting that the government is free to endorse christianity all it wants with as much resources as it wants so long as there is no official US religion and so long as congress doesn't ban any religions.
Some selected quotes (or more precisely, a way to make reading my sources list interesting):
First, the more balanced document I found on the subject, by TheocracyWatch.org
There's also an ok one from about.com
David Kupelian for worldnetdaily
"Congress shall make no law." Thompson never did explain how a granite display of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse constituted Congress "making a law."
How far, millions wonder aloud, can this judicial assault on the nation's religious and traditional values, a jihad waged most prominently and notoriously by the American Civil Liberties Union, possibly go before someone stops it?
He goes on to claim various instances in history are proof that separation of church and state are a lie.
Nathan Tabor for RenewAmerica
"most Americans today have been spoon-fed a poison porridge of revisionist lies that claim George Washington and Company were all rationalistic Desists [sic] seeking to advance the secular ideals of the French Enlightenment."
"our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian . . . this is a Christian nation." (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892)
"Because three generations of secular humanist educators and atheistic ACLU ideologues have parroted this big lie"
But what we're dealing with here is ... a willful ignorance (real or professed) of long-settled historical facts.
Some stuff from creationist.org (not even worth quoting, you know the like from them).
Katherine Harris, former secretary of florida, a former representative (of florida), and 2006 senate candidate (she lost), in an interview for "florida baptist witness":
"that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."
tl;dr it's primarily a source list, with partially out of context quotes (the difference between this and a quote mine is I am doing my best to understand their position and then quote the scary bits, not understand it and then purposefully take them out of context to distort their position), I don't know what more you want from me!...
So I got this chain letter in my email the other day entitled "laus deo" in which it said, and I quote, "separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution." I thought I'd find all the errors and point them out; I did not, instead I linked to the snopes answer and said "only partially true" (curiously, they did not seem to care if it was true or not, because it "illustrated a point", though they never did say what point that was or why it was so valid that twisting the truth and even possibly outright lies were a good way to communicate it).
But in that quest to answer basic flaws, I decided I would address the idea that SoCaS denial by quoting the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." I figured I should anticipate any counter arguments and answer those, so I looked them up.
tl;dr someone emailed me something that said the separation of church and state doesn't exist, so I investigated.
Actually interesting bit for this thread (the only paragraph you *need* to read to contribute meaningfully):
It turns out, no surprise really, that these people (who deny separation of church and state is in the constitution) use a very strict definition of the establishment clause "congress shall make no law"; they essentially think that so long as congress doesn't ban a religion or officially declare christianity the religion of the USA, then the clause has not been violated. Granite statue of the ten commandments in the court room? Neither of those were violated, check. Prayer in the court room? Again, not violating the establishment clause, check. Endorsing christianity? Doesn't ban other religions, isn't official US religion, check. Giving massive amounts of money to christian churches? Doesn't prevent the free exercise of other religions, still isn't officially law-made US religion, check.
So, it looks like we all might have to get good at arguing law now, by which I mean understand all this and "educate" the SoCaS-deniers just as we must educate the creationists' distorted view of evolution into an accurate understanding.
tl;dr oi, just read the paragraph, but if you want a summary anyway (after having read it), here it is: these people argue for a very strict interpretation of both the establishment and free exercise clauses, insisting that the government is free to endorse christianity all it wants with as much resources as it wants so long as there is no official US religion and so long as congress doesn't ban any religions.
Some selected quotes (or more precisely, a way to make reading my sources list interesting):
First, the more balanced document I found on the subject, by TheocracyWatch.org
There's also an ok one from about.com
David Kupelian for worldnetdaily
"Congress shall make no law." Thompson never did explain how a granite display of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse constituted Congress "making a law."
How far, millions wonder aloud, can this judicial assault on the nation's religious and traditional values, a jihad waged most prominently and notoriously by the American Civil Liberties Union, possibly go before someone stops it?
He goes on to claim various instances in history are proof that separation of church and state are a lie.
Nathan Tabor for RenewAmerica
"most Americans today have been spoon-fed a poison porridge of revisionist lies that claim George Washington and Company were all rationalistic Desists [sic] seeking to advance the secular ideals of the French Enlightenment."
"our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian . . . this is a Christian nation." (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892)
"Because three generations of secular humanist educators and atheistic ACLU ideologues have parroted this big lie"
But what we're dealing with here is ... a willful ignorance (real or professed) of long-settled historical facts.
Some stuff from creationist.org (not even worth quoting, you know the like from them).
Katherine Harris, former secretary of florida, a former representative (of florida), and 2006 senate candidate (she lost), in an interview for "florida baptist witness":
"that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."
tl;dr it's primarily a source list, with partially out of context quotes (the difference between this and a quote mine is I am doing my best to understand their position and then quote the scary bits, not understand it and then purposefully take them out of context to distort their position), I don't know what more you want from me!...