rfwu

You guys make a good point. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Told you I didn't get it.

Shake

Yeah, if something similar had appeared in BC, it'd definitely have a more pro-church (xianity) leaning. When I was younger I enjoyed BC more, but he's taken a decidedly more Xian stance over the last few years.

Too bad they didn't point out that "God" isn't in the Constitution either!!!

theophilus

I do not challenge that the phrase "separation of church and state" is an acceptable description of the effect of the first Amendment, but it is not a comprehensive explanation of the meaning or intent of the Amendment.

The Constitution dealt exclusively with the Federal government. The states were concerned that a strong central government would intrude into their jurisdictions (which is exactly what has happened). The Amendments were added as a concession to those who would not support the Constitution without some inumeration of "Rights."

The First Amendment applied to the national government; it forbade the preferential treatment of any "establishment of religion (the word establishment is used as a noun here, not a verb); it was not intended to restrict the role of religion in public affairs.

It was not until the modern applicaiton of the 14th Amendment that the federal courts began restricting the exercise of religion in the states.

As a Christian, I oppose the imposition of any religion by or through government agencies. There needs to be some recognition, however, that this opposition itself is an expression of protestantism since neither Catholicism nor Islam have no such opposition.

Neither does atheism have any oppositon to the imposition of "anti-religion" by means of government.

beejay

Are you saying that no Catholics and Muslims support the separation? That's just not true.

And I don't think you can find anything in "Protestantism" that necessary implies an acceptance of separation. This was a lesson learned by the religious conflicts caused by government involvement in religion.

While there are atheists here who would like the government to promote "anti-religion", I think many in this forum would be happy for a true separation, with neither government support or disapproval.

(I hope you aren't arguing that the lack of a religious monument on a government building is "anti-religion".)

PopeInTheWoods

Quite right. I don't think anyone here is demanding that government entities erect monuments stating "There are no gods, and anyone who believes in them is an idiot whose rights should be revoked." Now that would be be anti-religion, whereas a monument to some version of the Approximately Ten Commandments or "In God We Trust" would be pro-religion. Having no monument whatsoever is neither.

Andy

theophilus

I'm not arguing that but, as I explained above, that is the effect.

beejay

Oh, a few more details please.

Could you possibly be a little more specific? Protestant churches in Europe have no difficulty with being the established church. In America, various Protestant denominations were happy to run things. Where is there anything distinctive about Protestantism that embodies the separation?

That Catholics and Muslims in other countries are happy with no church/state separation doesn't mean the same applies in the US.

That seems so wrong I don't know where to start. I guess you think the government has to pick the right god to affirm and deny the rest. There is a reason most people don't want the government making that choice.

Jet Grind

Now that's just plain silly. Are you saying that every second you do not verbally affirm the existence of God you are actually affirming that he/she/it doesn't? Rediculous.

Really? What about the Easter Bunny? Can't forget about him or else you won't be seeing any candy on Easter Sunday.

What an outstanding strawman you make! Atheists don't want the free expression of religion to be banned from public life either, we just don't want the state endorsing any religious dogma. Get your facts straight.

Roland98

OK then, I'll throw out the common rebuttal: whose God do we erect monuments to? The Xian god? Vishnu? Zeus? The entire pantheon of Roman, Greek, Celtic, Aztec, Egyptian, Babylonian, African etc. gods? After all, to exclude is to deny, and if we deny their existence, then clearly the state is establishing that fact that the religion is false.

ohwilleke

This is correct as far as it goes. State constitutions did protect freedom of religion even before the U.S. Constitution was adopted (Virginia, I believe, was the first to do so). Although those protections varied from state to state. Some state constitutions follow the federal model, others exclude atheists, and other are more specific in their own particular ways.