Religious Right Seeks Judiciary That Dissolves Church-State Separation

[reprehensor]

Religious right seeks judiciary that dissolves church-state separation

Religious conservatives, emboldened by President Bush's re-election and confident of their political clout, are not interested in merely overhauling the judiciary. Ideally, they are seeking a judiciary that would remove the wall of separation between church and state.

This ambition is stated clearly in numerous legal briefs currently on file at the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a pending case; they seek removal of "a Berlin wall" that is "out of step with this nation's religious heritage." In fact, their leaders argue in interviews that the church-state barrier is a "myth" invented by the high court in 1947, thanks to a twisted interpretation of our founding documents.

snip

But the briefs don't mention 1786, when young (Thomas) Jefferson was the author of a Virginia law separating church from state. This law is cited on his grave, at his request. A preamble excerpt: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of (religious) opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." Another: "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."

more@link

[Igel]

1. The second Jefferson quote really needs more context.

It could be consonant with the first quote--the civil rights we enjoy are not contingent upon our holding to a particular set of religious opinions, just as we owe allegiance to no specific set of religion opinions. There's also a reading in which our religious opinions in no way inform our thinking about civil rights and what those should be.

I'd think 18th century English would prefer the former reading, with which I can whole-heartedly agree, but it involves interpreting "depend" to have a meaning closer to its source language. The latter I would have some philosophical problems with.

In any event, the "wall of separation" is certainly not Constitutional language; it was interpreted to be the preferred interpretation of how to apply a constitutional passage. The distinction is difficult to maintain in discussion, and relies crucially on the text of the document that was accepted, and what one of the many people ultimately involved in its production intended or interpreted it to say.

[ClintonTyree]

2. Where do they get this shit from?

"they seek removal of a "Berlin wall" that is "out of step with this nation's religious heritage". WHAT religious heritage? :grr: The Church and State barrier is a MYTH? I think there are PLENTY of examples of our founders intentions on this point, and they ALL point to a definite DIVISION between Church and State! :mad:

These pious, hypocritical, whack jobs are TOTALLY out of step with the rest of the country on this issue, but they continue to view an election that was STOLEN as a mandate to push their extremist agenda forward.

I'm so mad I could shit! :grr: I HATE these motherfuckers. Keep YOUR goddamn religion out of MY government and vice-versa. These asswipes need to lose their tax exempt status, immediately! Fucking insane theocrats! :nuke:

[reprehensor]

3. Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State

Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State

Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was founded by Christian men on Christian principles. Although well-intentioned, such sentiment is unfounded. The men who lead the United States in its revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination.

Why do some Christians imagine these men are Christians? Besides a desperate desire that it should be so, in a selective examination of their writings, one can discover positive statements about God and/or Christianity. However, merely believing in God does not make a person a Christian. The Bible says that "the fool says in his heart, there is no God." Our founding fathers were not fools. But the Bible also says "You say you believe in God. Good. The demons also believe and tremble."

Merely believing in God is insufficient evidence for demonstrating either Christian principles or that a person is a Christian.

snip

Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection.

more@link

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

The majority of the Founding Fathers were more Deist than Christian. If they wanted to force a religion down the throats of Americans, it would have been Deism, or Unitarianism.