# Not in the constitution



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Notice that the ACLU states that the reason they are suing is because this violates the constitutional separation of church and state. I challenge anyone to find separation of church and state in the United States constitution. I don't know, I can't find it and I have a copy in scroll form in my library. 
I think it's just one of those things that if you say it often enough soon people will begin to believe it. I think that is the liberal modes operandi. 
What a shame that a segment of our society wants to ignore the foundations this nation was built upon.



> Breaking News from NewsMax.com
> 
> ACLU Sues City Over Jesus Painting
> 
> ...


I hope this causes the ACLU some heartburn.



> "The Book the ACLU Does Not Want You to Read! I Promise. I saw it happen!"
> -Gary DeMar, President of American Vision
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

You are correct that you will not find the statement "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. It is not found there.

The term "separation of church and state" is believed to have been first coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. In that letter, Jefferson talked about a "wall of separation" that needed to exist between religion and government to keep each of them from infringing on the other.

The U.S. Supreme Court (in their Constiutionally-mandated role of interpreting the law) has agreed that the 1st amendment implies that there should be a separation of church and state. The Court uses several criteria to determine when this separation fails to occur. These criteria are discussed here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031700a.htm

So, what is your gripe, exactly? Are you upset that the ACLU keeps talking about "separation of the church and state" when that exact phrase is not found in the Constitution?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

BigDaddy

They should find a different phrase to define what they mean ... something that is in the Constitution of something that is taken from SCOTUS.

That phrase implies something that does not exist and it implies it as though it's common knowledge.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

BD, much of this has been debated and talked about before, but one has to remember that while rare, the Supreme Court has overturned or changed on many matters but the Constitution remains the same with the exceptions of additional amendments added to it.

The areas in question remain the same today 231 years later as they where the day it was signed. Recent ruling concerning race and integration change some of the rulings from Brown vs The Board of Education. That is why new cases are continually being brought to the SCOTUS in an attempt to have new justices look at things past justices have done.

Keep in mind when reading Jefferson's comments, that much of his concern was that states like Mass for example had at one time state religions which paralleled a lot of things that the Church of England had done. He feared that the states would become like Britain and would be intolerant of other Christian faiths.

I harken the use of that verbage as being similar to that of the Free Thinkers in Fargo, who simply took a line from a treaty and are attempting to rewrite our nations history with its use. One cannot apply todays meanings to words written 200+ years ago. To understand the meaning of those words, one has to look at the usage and events surrounding there use of the time they where written.

If we do not, the 2nd Amendment will result in the loss of our firearms for sport and protection. One cannot defend the 2nd Amendment and then turn to 21 century usage and apply it to the 1st or 4th or 6th for that matter.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

OK, but I think that we are getting tied up in semantics. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the judicial branch, it is the duty of the judicial branch to interpret the law. Therefore, even though the Constitution does not explicitly state "separation of church and state", SCOTUS has interpreted that the Constitution does require the separation of church and state in some situations.

Therefore, for all intensive purposes, the Constitution DOES require the separation of church and state, at least until the Constitution is amended or SCOTUS issues a new ruling on the matter.

A similar issue exists with the Second Amendment, part of the Constitution that is vague to some people. Maybe it should be amended to make it more explicit relative to our rights to own and use firearms. The option is to have it open to interpretatioin depending on who sits on SCOTUS at any particular time.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Ron:

You typed your message the same time that I was typing my reply. However, it looks like both of us are thinking along similar lines.

SCOTUS has a large amount of power, but its power to interpret a law only goes as far as the language of that law allows for interpretation. The same goes for the Constitution.

The US Congress also has a large amount of power and can amend the law (including the Constitution) as it sees fit to limit the interpretative power of the Court.

The Constitution was written at a time when the United States of America had little resemblance to our country today. I think that it is healthy for any government to periodically review and update its laws as it needs to. Heck, the ND legislature does this all the time.

Wouldn't it eliminate a considerable amount of First Amendment debate if the amendment was amended to make it clear as to whether government was supposed to stay out of religion, religion was supposed to stay out of government, or both?

The same goes for the Second Amendment. Wouldn't we be better served if it was amended to clarify whether it applies to all citizens or just "militia"? Wouldn't it be good to have it clarified so that we all knew whether "arms" simply covered firearms, or also included tanks, nukes, or other big artillery?

Think about how many barstool arguments or debates are caused by vague laws open to differing interpretation.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

While it would be nice, think of the hoopla and wasted time and effort that would go with doing what you said. With the extremest on both sides of these issues how would any common ground be found?

You posted:



> Wouldn't it eliminate a considerable amount of First Amendment debate if the amendment was amended to make it clear as to whether government was supposed to stay out of religion, religion was supposed to stay out of government, or both?


While it fixes the issue from one side, does it really solve the issue?

I recently read some excerpts from a book publish back in the 1860's concerning this issue. After reading parts of it, I want to read the entire book. But it made me think that maybe your fix was really not what the founding fathers intended. So there lies the rub. Granted today is not the same world as when our nation was founded, but does that mean our current Constitution is outdated?

I ask this not to argue, but to further a discussion, because to many have not the foggiest idea of who our founding father where, why this nation was formed, why it has survived and mostly why we have allowed our political climate to jeopardize its existence!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Therefore, even though the Constitution does not explicitly state "separation of church and state", SCOTUS has interpreted that the Constitution does require the separation of church and state in some situations.


The next supreme court ruling may be that there is no required separation of church and state. I think the formers of this nation were straight forward people. If they had intended the first amendment to include separation of church and state they would have said it not implied it. Liberal justices have been liberal with their interpretation. Liberal as in interpreting along the lines of their political belief, not along the lines of the constitution.

Can anyone explain to me why it is always the political left that is chipping away at Christianity in this nation? I don't understand that. I know they think they are more sophisticated, more intelligent, but after watching Kerry's wife in the last election, not to mention Hillary, have they not been given enough evidence to find a grain of humility?



> Wouldn't it eliminate a considerable amount of First Amendment debate if the amendment was amended to make it clear as to whether government was supposed to stay out of religion, religion was supposed to stay out of government, or both?


There is the problem. From all the writings I can find the formers intended the first amendment to keep government our of religion. Not religion our of government. To reword the constitution as you have suggested would be a slippery slope indeed. This would allow the political left to destroy many things including the first and second amendment. I think the far left interpretation would be the not to slow death of this nation.
What worries me is the left is willing to give up much of the religious portion of the first amendment, but not the freedom of speech. I guess we decide what is more important to us. Oh, but wait, they are trying to muzzle talk radio, so I guess they want their free speech, but not free speech for those who disagree. Many more liberals than conservatives are willing to give up all of the second amendment. As a matter of fact look at the political affiliation of all the antigun groups. Liberal, every one of them. No thank you, I wouldn't want the constitution brought up to date with liberals involved.
The supreme court has always been a liberal baby. Until they ruled for Bush in the Florida election. They have controlled the courts for many years. It is how they have advanced their agendas when they can't get them through congress. They have tried to block every appointment to the court that didn't meet their litmus test. The court should follow the constitution not liberally interpret it to advance agendas contrary to the constitution. The hate exhibited by liberals the past few years is not just because they lost the election to Bush, but because they lost the supreme court bid to steal the election from Bush in Florida. They are also livid over their loss of control of the supreme court.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That is what the constitution says ...

Religion was clearly shown by the Foundering Fathers to be a highly valued consideration in our Government and it's Values, one can see that by simply reading a few documents.

Looks to be "separation of legislation and religion."


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

I once sat through a Nazerene sermon denouncing watching the movie "Star Wars" and claiming it was evil. Its because of things like that that I say religion has no business in government lawmaking.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jdpete75 said:


> I once sat through a Nazerene sermon denouncing watching the movie "Star Wars" and claiming it was evil. Its because of things like that that I say religion has no business in government lawmaking.


I don't understand the connection. ???????

I don't blame Christianity, but those of us who are Christian have made far to many assumptions. I see no connection between star wars and evil. The Bible doesn't discuss things beyond the realm of earth (other than heaven). Therefore there are many possibilities. As a Christian myself I am not arrogant enough to think I am the epitome of civilized life forms. The universe is huge, and I am but a dust speck. Considering the vastness of space I would be surprised if there are no other life forms beyond earth. As a matter of fact I would be surprised if there are not other civilizations. None of this means that God is not supreme over all the universe. . I'm just amazed and thankful that he cares for something as insignificant as myself.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

My connection is that the "separation of church and state " exists so it doesnt become a felony to watch Star Wars. I agree the 10 commandments are good rules to live by ("though shalt not kill" is hard sometimes) and that our government should apply these principles. However it is never the moderate point of view that is in charge, radicals and zealots always manage to take charge somehow. Just look at the muslim states for example, they could really use some separation of mosque and state policies. For cripe sakes they wanted to start a war because someone drew a picture of mohammed a couple years ago. 99% of (insert religion here) have good intentions and prefer to live in peace, but it is the 1% that would influence decisionmaking. In my prior posts example, the one percent of nazerenes might favor a law banning movies such as star wars to protect me from its inherent evils. Now, me likeing the movie would probably watch it and I might run the risk of being stoned to death in an effort to protect the rest of society from my corruption. The Christian faith is not immune to to zeolots either, the KKK seems to think they are pretty holy. Jim Jones was an Ordained minister for the Disciples of Christ. No religion is immune to corruption which is why I believe that a separation is in place to protect us. Kool-Aid anyone?

ps. Here is a quick read on Jones with a little paragraph on his political activism

http://www.culteducation.com/jonestown.html


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

That's the beauty of the amendments seeming to appear vague, when in reality they are not. SCOTUS has the power to amend, change, and adjust opinions up and down the scale which they constantly do and as a result everyone gets a bite at the apply with the core left intact. To make it a felony for you to watch Star Wars congress would have to pass a law in violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which would be struck down as unconstitutional. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. Leave the Constitution alone, it works just fine as is.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Leave the Constitution alone, it works just fine as is.


That's what I prefer. I might add that I would also prefer that judges follow the constitution as intended, not make up crap to support political agendas. The second amendment isn't for sporting purposes as many would like us to believe, it is to ensure freedom does not die. It is the teeth (albeit very small teeth in this modern day) of the constitution. It's intention was for every individual to privately own arms if they wish.

I don't fear people like Jim Jones. Only the mentally unstable are foolish enough to follow such people. Their chance of influencing the constitution is a snowballs chance in he!!.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman and Gohon:

You have a Catch-22. You both want the Constitution (or at least the 1st and 2nd Amendments) to remain as it is and open to interpretation. This position may because you are nervous about changes that would occur once the document is being amended, or it may be because you want the SCOTUS to have the power to interpret things as they see fit so that things can continue to change based on our culture and societal needs.

However, I have also heard many people complain about the Court "legislating from the bench". The Court can do so when the law that they are interpreting is open to wide interpretation.

It appears to me that we can't have it both ways. If people want the Constitution to stay vague, they best not complain about the Court overstepping its authority.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I think when you here people complain that the Courts are legislating from the bench, it is not because they failed to properly interpret the law but that they amended the law to suit their own desires. Least that's how I view it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right Gohon that is what my complaint is. Bigdaddy, the activist liberal judges interpret for political agenda when the constitution is not vague. My complaint is when an average sixth grader knows what the constitution means, but a supreme court judge gets it wrong.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> Plainsman and Gohon:
> 
> You have a Catch-22. You both want the Constitution (or at least the 1st and 2nd Amendments) to remain as it is and open to interpretation. This position may because you are nervous about changes that would occur once the document is being amended, or it may be because you want the SCOTUS to have the power to interpret things as they see fit so that things can continue to change based on our culture and societal needs.
> 
> ...


How is this statement from the 1st amendment vague, 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It is pretty clear to me, there shall be no state established religion. There is nothing in this statement prohibiting any government body from displaying religious items such as the Ten Commandments or a picture depicting Jesus Christ, nor does it prohibit prayer in schools. It simply states that Congress cannot tell us what religion we are going to observe.

It is the liberal judges who interpret this phrase and twist it's meaning to suit their own political agenda.

huntin1


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788


----------

