Religion in politics makes about as much sense as politics in church .
Who has killed more innocent people -- that "scamp" Bill Clinton or the "Reverend" George Bush ?
Reddog

In a recent interview with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee pointed out that the phrase and use of "separation of church and state" did not even come about until 1802 by Thomas Jefferson.

Interesting, that it is not in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or else where in our founding principles.

Neither is "fair trial or "right to privacy" or many other specific words or slogans. The Constitution and Declaration are the secular founding documents of our secular nation. One of the "founding principals" of our nation is the establishment of a democratic republic, not a theocracy. Iran is a good example of what America, under a Christian theocracy, would be like. There is not and there has never been a democratic theocracy. The fight to preserve our democratic republic against Christian theocrats may be the most important battle those of us who believe in our nation and it's founding documents and principals have ever fought and we are losing.

Jefferson was speaking of the first amendment to the Constitution, and used this phrase to explain the intent of the establishment clause. It may be true to say the phrase " separation of church and state" did not come about until 1802, but to say the ideal being explained by the phrase does not appear in any of our founding documents would be an error. Jefferson after all was the author of the declaration of independence, and a major contributor to the Constitution. So taking Huckabee's word regarding the intent of the first amendment over Jefferson's, I will have to choose Jefferson every time.

His point was the First Amendment allows all to follow as they choose. And that "separating" the two cultures was not an issue. But rather the govt was there simply to protect a person's right to practice religion as they choose. And Congress would not declare or force "a national regligion" upon its people.

It seems our current interpretation of that phrase means govt should not be involved in issues with religious undertones, i.e. stem stell research. I do not believe that was not the original intent.

So where is the "ideal" evidenct, as you imply? First Amendment??? How so?

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Yup, that's it.
Imagine George W. trying to write that same messsage.

Mind you, I was relaying Huckabee's view of Jefferson's speach. And reading the full text of the speach (Thanks) I agree with Huckabee's use of Jefferson's point.
such as "..legitimate govt reaches actions only and not opinions,"

********
Nampa reader, you implied I wrote the ideal of 'separation of church and state' is not in the founding documents. I simply repeated the point "the phrase is not there".

Differently, you imply the ideal is.

As to whether the "ideal" IS there, would be a matter of interpretation and I asked of your interpretion of that. Are you providing Jefferson's speach as evidence?

*************
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
**********
Some people opine that Congress should be absolutely hands-off of ANYTHING where there is a religious matter. But Huckabee was saying otherwise.

*************
For example, can Congress fund stem cell research or not?--- It doesn't violate separation of church of state...
Can schools teach creationism? The separation is still intact even when doing so.

Yes the ideal is there, but like vet4peace mentioned, it is not directly stated. Just like your right to a fair trial or your right to privacy or your right to freely travel about the country are not directly stated but definitely exist in the context of the Constitution. The ideal of separation of church and state is indirectly stated in the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the first amendment to the Constitution and further explained by Jefferson in his letter. It is explained by the phrases like the one you pointed out
"that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions".. And
"thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State"… And
"Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion",… When the supreme court is tasked with deciding a case regarding separation issues, they are left with the same decision I mentioned in an earlier post. Do you take the word of someone like Huckabee, who probably has a political/religious reason for trying to interpret the amendment to fit their needs, or do you go with the opinion of someone who was actually involved in the writing of the Constitution and the amendment in question. Again, I will choose Jefferson every time.

As for the other questions you posed me. Creationism can only be taught without violating the first if it is taught in the context of comparing it to other theories, if it is taught in the context of, or with the intent of delivering the message "this is god's way/word and if you don't believe it, you're wrong" that would clearly be a violation.

In my opinion stem cell research was not a religious question until it fell victim to the abortion debate. Much like that question, it cannot be decided by bringing a purely religious argument against it. By passing a law for or against an action based on the viewpoint of any one religion, this by default establishes that religions viewpoint as the "official" or "accepted" viewpoint, and deeming other (religious) viewpoints to be "wrong", this in turn establishes an defacto or quasi-official religion. If one wishes to oppose any given legislation they must bring a non-religious argument as to why it should be banned. Same thing with same sex marriage laws. Every argument I hear against these things is religiously based and therefore invalid by way of the first amendment.

Lastly, these are my opinions, I appreciate your taking the time to discuss them with me. If you still disagree with me or my opinions, that’s OK. I am capable of agreeing to disagree, without resorting to calling names. Thank you for posting to the forum I initiated.

have the right ideas. I think this sums it up pretty well.

We have the right to freedom of religion (or lack thereof), and not freedom from it.

In other words, we have the right to practice as we please, but not to inhibit the free practice of others.

I think having the Ten Commandments in public buildings (more specifically - a courthouse) is great - as long as other religions and ideas have equal opportunity to place similarly appropriate displays. Why should we inhibit one idea simply because someone feels like they don't agree?

!!!Vote Vbron for President, 2020!!!

This means I can (humanely) slaughter a goat on the courthouse steps (don't worry, I'll leave a path so I don't infringe on your right to egress and ingress) prior to my church's naked parade down main street(don't worry, I'll have my parade permit).

Ah, those Founding Pops. So prescient, so wise.

Let us give thanks.

PS: Dibs on the knucklebones!

Those freedoms of religion you tout are only for the "proscribed" religions. Please, send the list so I can get on board the freedom of religion train.

I must say, I'm pleased to have stumbled upon this site, where you have a direct line to what the founders intended.

"Throw reason out the window..."

Isn't that Rule 1 for religion?

What generalizations? I think you should consult your Webster's, and get back to me on that.

First, you decide I'm an atheist, when I made it perfectly clear that I'm religious, apparently just because my religious practices are different than yours. I'm still waiting for that list of acceptable religions.

Religion, by its very nature, requires the suspension of logic and reason. And yet you decry my lack of reason? Weird. You frost the cake by calling my opinion non-sensical illogical blathering. There's that sweet sweet Christian compassion I love so well.

Don't know if you're in on it, but there is currently a genocide going on in Iraq, and one threatened in Iran. What genocide did YOU have in mind? And sorry, but Bush beat you to the blaming it on God thing.

The 10 commandments has absolutely NO place in our courthouses. There's a few good rules...no stealing, no lying, no killing, and these concepts are not unique to the 10 Commandments. I'm pretty sure society had figured out those things were bad LONG before Moses stumbled upon the tablets. The other commandments are about excluding MY gods. To hell with that. And I'm not about to honor my pedophile father, so there goes that one,too. Paint your house with the commandments if you need continual reminding of how to behave. Leave them out of my government buildings, since the rest of us already know wrong from right.

I agree 100% that religion as well as other psychiatric conditions should be illuminated in our education process. A SCIENCE class teaches science, of which Creationism has none. ID does not belong in a science class. It belongs at your dinner table, or in your church.

I think that my right to be free of your proselytizing is what has your panties in a bunch.

I don't give a rats ass what invisible god (and there are a lot of them) you believe in . Just keep it the hell out of our schools and the government .
You want to brain wash your kids , fine , send them to a religious school or better yet home school them your self . That should screw them up beyond repair .

Reddog

religion. i love it. first off lets all agree there have been some great points brought up, by everyone posting on this blog, i agree that we have a right to religion, or a right to have no religion at all. i remember learning back in high school that the founding fathers came here to seek freedom to express religion how they choose, and my oh so wise teacher taught us that we can worship any way we choose as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. sounds pretty basic to me. my church wants to paint pictures of frogs walzting through meadows to show our divine obedience to his frogship. is it gonna hurt anyone? no. so its fine. but, if my pastor or bishop or head frog lord called me up and said after worship we were going to drown a captured middle schooler in frog intestines to show our religious intents, it crosses the line. harm to another person while expressing our religious beliefs is not acceptable. agreed?

but that can get tricky, we mentioned abortion earlier, so what happens there? is that harming another person? when is a fetus considered alive? as soon as the sperm contacts the egg does that constitute life? i personally think that abortion is a personal choice. if your beliefs go against it, don't do it. if you ethically and morally don't have a problem with it, then it is your kid, your choice as parents. thats my stand.

next, the 10 commandments in the court house. i don't have a problem with it. i am a big enough person to pick out the parts i like, and can ignore the parts i don't like. if his frogship wanted to draw up a guidline for better living and post it next to the 10 commandments, then cool. if god and his frogship agree that stealing is bad, and coveting my neighbors wife isn't so hot, then thats cool. if any religion wants to put its paraphenalia in our public buildings saying that it supports and upholds the law, then i'm all for it. it just seems the christians have the jump on that, which i am going to talk to his frogship about tonight. we need our 12 principles of self governing typed up for sure!

lastly (for now) i also believe that religion should be a part of our education system, and i also agree to it not being part of a science class. why don't we have a theology course offered in any of our high schools? (i believe most major universities have one in place) teaching the broad views of many religions in my opinion is in no way a crime. i think that the sooner our children can learn about all religions, what they profess and how they live, the better. i feel that if i had learned as a youth to accept or at least question other viewpoints on many things i, and our society, would be a more accepting, tolerant, not to mention wiser, people as a whole. and how is that bad in any way? the same thing goes for government. i think that the sooner our youth are taught about what different parties believe, (platforms) and what they think, the better. i do not feel that one semester of class on government and politics is enough. mash it together with current events and it becomes a joke. young people in this country need to become involved in our political process. ask any high schooler who the main candidates are running for president- i think we would find that they don't know. or really care. ask most college students what the candidates support. they don't know or care. politics is a thing that their parents do, that old people follow. why should we concern ourselves with it? anyway, let me know what you think about my views and opinions, i don't mind a little constructive critisism and a push to help broaden my scope.

I think the frogs were one of the plagues of Egypt . They crawled out of the river -- died -- and turned into oil . They lay there till George Bush (who talks to God) , invaded the middle east to get the frogs back for Halaberton . I mean , ya know they were slippery , and no one was using them , so why not ?

Reddog

You have an excellent perspective on this. As a reasonable adult, I can see your good ideas for what they are.

I personally find all this pro-religious bigotry appalling. But not surprising, since it's been happening since, oh, way before JC.

I thank you for your creative vision of the frogs. I don't know how His Holy Frogship feels, but I think you may be on to something.

and back slowly away from the debate. Your mental state is visibly deteriorating, and we don't need no loose cannons in this here discussion.

Player46664 is right on the money.

Religion, whether people like it or not, is so deeply engrained into our history and culture that is surprises me there is such a taboo against teaching about religious theory in public school. The current system only promotes ignorance. If the teaching of theology were approached objectively, with each religion presented as its own viable theory, students would be enabled walk away from high school with at least some knowledge of the way the world is. I will add, adamantly, that it should NOT be in a science class. Religion, by definition, is faith-based, and is not science no matter how you slice it. I could make the similar age-old argument about abstinence and how ignorance doesn't prevent teen pregnancy either. Education, education, education. It is what seperates the haves from the have-nots.

If children had more education about the way the world really is, there would likely be less people like Vbron out there making an embarrassment of themselves and their religion.

Additionally, although the Ten Commandments promote good morals, the courthouse is not the place for 10 rules designed specifically for Christians to follow.

I asked Vbronco if he would object to my teaching the 4th graders about Christianity. I see he's skipped out on this discussion.

As a Catholic junior high student, our curriculum included visiting each of the denominations in our city. The temple, the synagogue, the stake house, the cathedral. We learned a smidgeon about each religion, but truly, it was a chance for the nuns to counsel us AFTER the field trips about why Catholicism was superior to all the others. I also experienced negative results (2 weeks detention for my "rudeness") after asking the Mormon bishop why they didn't allow black people or women to be leaders in the church. I was always getting into trouble for asking the "wrong" questions.

I maintain that discussions of religious ideology belong in the home and church. The historical impact of religion, however, does have a place in a world history class, since some historical events (the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the diaspora to the New Country to escape the English church, the Muslim conflicts, etc.) have so unarguably impacted civilization.

Seems to me parents who want their children to be taught religion should send the kiddies to private catechism at the church of their choice, or become educated enough about their own faith to teach their kids themselves.

Just watched the Nova series about Intelligent Design. Talk about an eye-opener. I recommend anyone interested in this debate have a look at

Nova ID

And last but not least, I very much appreciate the thoughtful posts from Nampa and Pan.

red dog- you are correct in thinking that the frogs were one of the ten plagues spoken of in the bible, and it would make sense that they died, became a fossil fuel and are now part of the oil in the mid-east. i am failing to see, however, how oil and george have anything to do with what i was talking about. perhaps you are implying that the war on terror is really a holy war? i don't know. i would appreciate it if you could explain the meaning behind your post. and also, if you could get me a definition of "halaberton" that would be wonderful. it appears to be a word i don't know.

coultergeist- i am afraid that the prospect of you teaching 4th graders about christianity might make me a little uneasy. i think that the mind of a 4th grader is still a little young to be grasping for diversity in religion. however, if you would like to volunteer to teach a section on christianity in a 12th grade classroom setting, open to questions and a debate where students wouldn't be punished for asking the "wrong questions", and where no ideas were forced, merely presented, then i would applaud your endevour and probably even come along to listen.
as far as the goat sacrifice, and naked parade, i don't know what the local laws where you live say about animal cruelty, or what your religious requirements are for a "sacrifice" but as long as you operate within said laws, then i would sanction your sacrifice. unfortunately, i am pretty sure that a naked parade would violate a law or two on indescent exposure. but that might depend on where you hold your parade, i don't know what the law says about being naked on your own property, so if you could convince your church/organization to buy a large piece of land where you can parade around naked all day, sweet. send me an invite for sure.
to some extent i also feel that religion should be taught in the home, by the parents, however, once an individual is old enough, i think they should have the opportunity and chance to break out of the narrow minded thinking and discover for themselves how to worship, if at all. and i also think that with the education system we have in place now, it could work. possibly an after school extra curricular thing, i don't know. i agree with pan, that if religion is left entirely up to parents then the populace will become biased towards their own beliefs and will become unaccepting of other peoples "strange" religions. which is one thing i am sure we can all agree that we DON'T want.

Pan and Nampa- thanks very much for the insight that you have added to my comments about having a religious course in the schools, i really liked what you said and appreciate your comments, i agree with nampa that presenting a completly bias free, strictly informational course covering hundreds of major beliefs would be a daunting task. and i also whole heartedly agree that the court house or any government building is not the place for strictly christian propoganda. either alllow all religions the ability to hang their stuff, or restrict any and all religions from the same. i guess this is the part where i have to write my congressional representative and get involved right? i hate that..

Reminds me why I feel that NO religion is the best religion. All are evil and the practice of any of them should be forbidden. This however IS America so we will continue to bicker on about things that even God himself couldn’t care less about.

I'm sorry , I meant Halliburton , I didn't realize the spelling police were on this forum . I'll try to be more careful in the future , please do not punish me for my misspelling . I am sorry you could not understand what I meant --------- I am also a little surprised you could find your way to this forum what with all the misspellings in the Statesman .

Reddog