How would you guys respond to this?

[karadan]

Hi all. I saw this on another forum i frequent and was wondering what you thought of the points raised in it. I'm not very up-to-date with my American history so if someone could shed a bit of light on the separation of church and state question, that'd be great.

------------------------

I know this is going to be a tough pill for a lot of you to swallow and frankly it will cause a heated discussion but i just can't help myself. Can anyone here provide any legal document in which the phrase "Separation of Church and State" exists? The phrase Separation of Church and state originated from Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptist church reassuring the wall is not a wall of separation of church and state meant that the wall exists to protect religion from the Government establishing laws against it.

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.

What our government has done has established a "Religion" of "No Religion" in which "No Religion" is taught or "Atheism" is Taught and therefore breaks this amendment.

Jefferson's conviction was that citizen's individual rights to religion were natural, God given rights, and that the federal government was not to interfere with these rights. Likewise, the intention of the First Amendment was not to censor religious expression in public or otherwise ... unless the religious acts disrupted "peace and good order", or, as the Danbury Baptists put it ...worked "ill to (one's) neighbor". #31 And the "free exercise" clause of the amendment is there, specifically, to protect religious expression! This Amendment as a whole was enacted, in fact, not to keep Christian beliefs and influences out of government, but to keep the national government out of Christian beliefs and practices!

And with regard to the phrase "separation of church and state", which is erroneously attributed to the First Amendment, David Barton stated in his book "Original Intent, The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion" that "There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context –have become the sole authorization for a national judicial policy.

Our forefathers high regard for Christianity in the public square was understood. The thought of removing it to make government "neutral" was unthinkable. Dr. Benjamin Rush (educator, signer of the Declaration of Independence) put it this way:

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the NEW TESTAMENT .... (A)ll its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well being of civil government."

The House Judiciary Committee in 1853-54, asserted that "Had the people, during the revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoptions of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that CHRISTIANITY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED, not any one sect (denomination). Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. IT (RELIGION) MUST BE CONSIDERED AS THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH THE WHOLE STRUCTURE RESTS. ... In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, AND THEY EXPECTED IT TO REMAIN THE RELIGION OF THEIR DESCENDENTS."

Still, despite this Christian majority, there are those who feel it is not harmful but actually helpful to secularize government, and that "neutralizing" government is more equitable to all people represented in the U.S. But, as stated before, "neutrality" in our public system does not translate into equality, or an equal playing field. Quite the contrary. It has simply put Christians under a complete disadvantage to Secular/Humanists/Atheists. Their beliefs (or non-beliefs, if you will) have become state mandated, and Christian tenets have been thrown aside. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEUTRALITY. There never will be.

The fact is ... if we do not choose to base our policies, belief systems, or school teachings upon Christian morals, we WILL most assuredly be basing them upon SOMEONE'S morals. All of law, all science, and even history (to a degree) is based upon SOMEONE"S beliefs, perspective, or point of view, whether they be religious or not. So whose morals or standards do we choose? Where will they come from, if not from Holy Scripture?

Jesus Christ made it very clear when He asserted that ..."He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." ... Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, NIV

The Lord also stated that ..."So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." -Revelation 3:16, KJV

He gave no room for playing both sides, no support for sitting on the fence. In essence, He was saying ... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEUTRALITY.

[Too Few Lions]

hmmm, only a rabid Christian could quote the NT and claim that if you're not with Jesus you're against him, as if somehow it's Christians versus the rest of the world. That's as illogical as me saying either you all accept my beliefs and my laws and run the country as I want or you're against me, there's no middle ground, no neutrality and no sitting on the fence. You'd all think I was mad!

It's just totally illogical to say that American law and government should be overtly Christian when there are so many people's views or so many other books we could choose to base our morals and laws on. The law should be neutral and just because it may no longer be overtly Christian (after all we live in modern plurastic multicultural countries), that doesn't make it anti-Christian or atheistic. It merely means the law is the law and it should be above any religion or other belief system. It can and should be neutral to people whatever their sex, colour, beliefs etc etc.

Plus you can't have a 'religion of no religion', that's just plain stupid. I've heard plenty of Christians say that atheism (or science) are just another religion. They're not.

I'm in the UK, so don't know that much about American history (we've got plenty of our own!) But the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, when I imagine far more people were actively Christian and being an atheist or non-Christian was probably far more difficult than it is now. But we don't live in the 18th Century anymore and the rabid Christian who posted that should wake up and realise the world's moved on. Not that I klnow much about it, but I think a lot of the founding fathers and important figures in early US history had deist leanings (rather than being overtly and actively Christian). Abraham Lincoln said,

'The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.'

Thomas Jefferson said,

'The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.'

Personally, I think there's probably still a fair amount of discrimination against atheists in the US, I imagine it would be a brave politician who would openly come out as being an atheist. I know George W. Bush is a moron but I think he summed up that basic level of discrimination when he reportedly said,

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

That from a guy who went on to become president of the US!

[Too Few Lions]

I imagine these guys are possibly playing up the importance of deism (given that they're deists!) but it's an interesting read

http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm

Apparently the Declaration of Independence only mentions god in a broad deistic sense, and not in an overtly Christian sense, and nowhere is Jesus or Christianity mentioned. It talks of 'the Creator', 'Nature's God' and 'Natural Law', which are very deistic and non-denominational terms.

It's also got a mention of a peace treaty between the US and Tripolitania (Libya) that was ratified by the US senate in 1797 and stated that 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion '

[palebluedot]

I only learned yesterday that the "under God" in "one nation, under God, freedom, liberty etc etc  was introduced in 1953 at the height of the McCarthyst hysteria

Interesting as I had heard it said 1000 times by theists that this is disproof of the separation of church and state by the founding fathers.

[Gawen]

I posted this back in July:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7859.msg119993#msg119993

It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle?

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
What does that mean? A little history is helpful: (as mentioned above) In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)

Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

The near universal acceptance of many terms, including 'separation of church and state, have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles.
Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do they separate church and state.

JEFFERSON'S 1802 LETTER TO THE DANBURY BAPTISTS
Religious Right activists have tried 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. 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."

Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements that disliked his stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw 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 letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In the 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 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.

Here's the important part

The Declaration of Independence

First and foremost, we are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

How about before the Constitution and Declaration? The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. Secular America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier? Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith.

America is one nation under a Constitution and not "the majority rules". The Constitution sets up a representative democracy (or Republic), with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, it was illegal when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

What our government has done has established a "Religion" of "No Religion" in which "No Religion" is taught or "Atheism" is Taught and therefore breaks this amendment.

Whoever wrote this is...well...ignorant on several levels.
This is the Happy Atheist Forum and that doesn't make me happy at all.

[fester30]

Any argument you make with a religious person on this that involves the Declaration or any other writings of founding fathers will be dismissed as "not the constitution."  It's true, there is no separation of church and state explicitly stated in the constitution.  However, every time Congress makes a law that is specifically based mainly on religious beliefs that violates basic rights, such as only allowing marriage between a man and a woman without any accommodation to homosexuals, that is Congress establishing religion in America.  They are forcing religious views of a specific sort on the rest of us, as not all religions are anti-homosexual.  When they have public funds and time (which is also money) being expended on religious items such as monuments of ten commandments and the saying of prayers in council meetings, they are favoring one religion over another, and by practice are establishing a religion.  A monument requires funding or permits, and passing a law allowing such establishes a state religion because it's saying we as a government endorse this religion.  Religions are for churches, not schools.  I'm sure they would not like allowing just Muslim prayers in school or just Muslim monuments on public grounds.  Allowing Christian monuments and prayers in such situations and places violates the rights of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, non-religious, etc., in the same way.

[Sandra Craft]

Somebody (I wish I could remember who) once said that you can't reason someone out of a position that reason didn't get them into, and I think that certainly applies here.  However, if I were going to try to discuss this it would be from the point that the main thrust of all that blah, blah, blah is not that that the game is rigged, but that it isn't rigged in their favor.  I've noticed that people who come up with these arguements often have a hard time dealing with the basically selfish and ignoble nature of them. 

[Recusant]

Somebody (I wish I could remember who) once said that you can't reason someone out of a position that reason didn't get them into...

I have seen that quote attributed to Ben Goldacre in Bad Science (2008):

"You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into."

However, I found almost exactly the same quote written by Laurence Haughton in It's Not What You Say, It's What You Do (2005):

"You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

Then there is the even earlier quotation from Sydney Smith:

"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out."

Though I've searched for the book (or more likely, sermon/essay) in which he wrote those two sentences, I have so far been unable to find it. However, since he died in 1845, there is no doubt that his quotation precedes the (much) later paraphrases with which we are familiar.

As for the OP, though I've written a fair number of words here previously on the topic, I think that Gawen's post does a superb job of covering the issues, so will refrain from piping up on it in this thread.