"Seperation of Church and state" isn't in the constitution

Discussion in 'History' started by Norsefire, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Why look for a way around a clear understandable constitutional provision?

    If you cannot stomach living under a constitutional form of government there is abundant alternative regimes that make up the rules at the whim of the current tyrant. Try arguing your religious theses with some corrupt government of your choice - there are many to select from.


    You have a slight error in your statement. The constitution says that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; ...

    Congress cannot pass laws that respect any already established religion, and/or cannot pass laws that establish [a new] religion.

    Included in the last article, VI, is the phrase,

    " ...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

    Members of Congress can pray all they want, they can assert themselves as the God's right hand man, that can walk around in priestly garb, make speeches and arguments and they can introduce legislation that is attempting to create mandatory prayers in all schools and even in the homes of the public, but they cannot pass those laws.

    The matter of "majority rule" must be looked at through the limiting and prohibiting provisions of the constitution. The 14th Amendment, for instance provides that no state shall deprive any person of due process of law ,or deny any person equal protection of the law. This mean,m in other words, that a majority cannot pass laws that disenfranchise a minority group, racially or otherwise. A majority cannot, by legislation, deny any person due process of the law, person or persons that is. A majority of a religious bent cannot pass laws that impose religious tenets and rules of conduct on the public -majority or minority, they are both prevented from sticking their moral noses in other persons butts whose actions are contrary to a particular religious belief.

    Whatever you want to believe about Roe V Wade, it is a fact that "Pro Life" is a pure and simple religious tenet that states that "life begins at conception". Ask the Pope, he'll tell you right out. The law as developed over the centuries states that a human being [referring to a fetus] that is the object of the laws protection, or recognized as a "human" with all the rights as all humans, must be "viable", meaning that it must be capable of exhibiting life such as breathing and able to exhibit a blood circulatory system.

    In other words, if an abortion is performed (the fetus is destroyed) at 81/2 months there is a very certain probability that a charge of murder will stand against doctor and would be mother, assuming proof that the fetus was viable at that moment. There is no scientific observation, nor any casual observation that a female egg newly impregnated by a male sperm can ever be deemed "viable", no matter how disgusting it may seem to self righteous Papal dogmatists.

    The rational form the "viable" standard is not arbitrary. Should the rule be that life begins at inception, thereby making any abortion a homicide, abortions would continue and like so called "illegal drugs" abortions would be conducted beyond the scrutiny of the law that would result in untold tragedy inflicted to mothers and fetuses alike.

    I say, tell the Pope, and his pedophile priests, bishops, cardinals to take their 'holier than the rest of us' and shove it.:shrug:​
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Wrong, Norse.

    The term "separation of church and state" as a collective colloquialism to encompass the First and the Fourteenth amendment. While it never appears in the Constitution itself, it is an accurate description of the intent of these amendments (and was coined by Thomas Jefferson).

    While you are correct that the First Amendment does not prohibit the states from combining religion and politics (in fact, they originally were encouraged to do so by many early founders), with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, the states were officially bound by this "firewall" of separation that constricted the movements of the Federal Government.

    Originally the "Bill of Rights" only applied in the relationship between the individual citizen and the Federal Government (unless mentioned specifically). Each state was allowed to adopt its own constitution that enfranchised rights as it saw fit.

    First Amendment:
    Fourteenth Amendment:
    If you read the portion that I bolded in Section I: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." you will note that the states were officially bound by the strictures of the Bill Of Rights as equally as the Federal Government. This was both the intent by way of the letter of the law and by spirit of the law. There is, in other words, no getting around it. Separation of church and state thus became the supreme law of the land in all areas of government.

    ~String
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    No.
    Go back to high school.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Which God though?
     
  8. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    You often exibit a desire to limit the will of the people.
     

Share This Page