Is it legal because the government says so?

[Tassman]

No. He was assuring the baptists that the state would not interfere with them.

"Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm

Not the other way around.

Please point out where he says that religion cannot interfere with the state. Or where it says that in the constitution.

The principle of Separation of Church and State has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Constitution. The SCOTUS has this right. It's role to interpret the Constitution.

[Sparko]

I'm not sure I understand how anyone thinks we'll get one without the other.

But we do. It means that the supreme court CAN indeed have the 10 commandments in it. That Congress and the military can have chaplains, and open sessions of congress with prayer. It means that our motto can say "In God we Trust" and we can pledge "one nation under God" - There is nothing to stop religion in the government, just the government from trying to restrict religion in the people or to establish a state church. The whole reason it was even written was to stop something like the Church of England. They wanted the people to be able to worship God how they wanted to, not how the state wanted them to. But they also expected that those in government would be believers and would worship God and they wanted God to lead their new country. Mentions of God are everywhere in the founding father's documents from the Declaration of Independence onward. It hasn't been until after about the mid 20th century that liberals have been on this kick to reinterpret the constitution to mean that there can be no religion in government.

[Sparko]

No. He was assuring the baptists that the state would not interfere with them.

"Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm

Not the other way around.

Please point out where he says that religion cannot interfere with the state. Or where it says that in the constitution.

The principle of Separation of Church and State has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Constitution. The SCOTUS has this right. It's role to interpret the Constitution.

so you got nothing then. As expected.

PS, The letter from the Danbury Baptists was not about the government proclaiming days of thanksgiving or fasting, neither are mentioned in the letter. You should actually do some research before just posting the first google result you can find that matches what you want it to say.

Here is the text of the letter to Jefferson:



It is solely them being worried that the state could infringe on their religious freedom, not the other way around. And that is what Jefferson answered. That the State cannot interfere or make laws regarding religious freedom. Nothing about not allowing religion to influence government. God was already part of the state, He is the one who gave men rights in the declaration of independence, remember?

[RumTumTugger]

so you got nothing then. As expected.

PS, The letter from the Danbury Baptists was not about the government proclaiming days of thanksgiving or fasting, neither are mentioned in the letter. You should actually do some research before just posting the first google result you can find that matches what you want it to say.

Here is the text of the letter to Jefferson:



It is solely them being worried that the state could infringe on their religious freedom, not the other way around. And that is what Jefferson answered. That the State cannot interfere or make laws regarding religious freedom. Nothing about not allowing religion to influence government. God was already part of the state, He is the one who gave men rights in the declaration of independence, remember?

Sparko you did it again don't you know that you are not to bring facts to the discussion Tass, Starlight et al want to continue to belive thier false narrative about America and the Constitution. so they can continue to say it is ok to trample on the rights of those who's views they detest.

[Sparko]

Sparko you did it again don't you know that you are not to bring facts to the discussion Tass, Starlight et al want to continue to belive thier false narrative about America and the Constitution. so they can continue to say it is ok to trample on the rights of those who's views they detest.

I find it hilarious that they think personal letters from a president can and should determine what the constitution means. Does that mean if Trump writes me a letter saying that the first amendment means that the government can kill all atheists that is what the constitution means and is now law?

The only thing that determines what the constitution means is what the constitution says. It is a contract.

[Jedidiah]

[QUOTE=Tassman;428060]

"Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

Already posted above and quoted. You should try reading the thread before posting.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,

You missed part of the quote you seem not to like. I added it back in for you.

The principle of Separation of Church and State has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Constitution. The SCOTUS has this right. It's role to interpret the Constitution.

That refers to what the activist court has done, not what Jefferson wrote. You keep changing the topic. Don't you like to admit what Jefferson actually wrote and supported?

[Sparko]

I am glad to find out that a President can change how the entire nation and supreme court should interpret the constitution merely by writing a personal letter. This precedent means that Trump can decide how the constitution should be interpreted and bypass the Judicial branch at any time merely by writing a letter to whomever he chooses. He should write a letter about the 14th amendment, then they would have no choice but to approve his executive order on immigration.

Right Tassman?

[Carrikature]

But we do. It means that the supreme court CAN indeed have the 10 commandments in it. That Congress and the military can have chaplains, and open sessions of congress with prayer. It means that our motto can say "In God we Trust" and we can pledge "one nation under God" - There is nothing to stop religion in the government, just the government from trying to restrict religion in the people or to establish a state church. The whole reason it was even written was to stop something like the Church of England. They wanted the people to be able to worship God how they wanted to, not how the state wanted them to. But they also expected that those in government would be believers and would worship God and they wanted God to lead their new country. Mentions of God are everywhere in the founding father's documents from the Declaration of Independence onward. It hasn't been until after about the mid 20th century that liberals have been on this kick to reinterpret the constitution to mean that there can be no religion in government.

Your examples actually prove my point, though. There's clear influence from a single religion in the government, and the result is things like "In God We Trust" even when that's not everyone's religion. These things may not be unconstitutional, but that's well into the realm of letter of the law rather than spirit.

Frankly, the DoI doesn't count for much. It's not a legally binding document. And re-interpreting the constitution is part of the game. That's how we can allow interracial marriage, for example.

Let's not forget, either, that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" were added in the 1950s. Complaining that it's just a recent liberal kick completely misses where it started. Of course it's only been since the mid-20th century...

[Sparko]

Your examples actually prove my point, though. There's clear influence from a single religion in the government, and the result is things like "In God We Trust" even when that's not everyone's religion. These things may not be unconstitutional, but that's well into the realm of letter of the law rather than spirit.

how does that prove your point? The government is not trying to pass any laws establishing a state religion or trying to stop anyone (even those in that government) from the free exercise thereof. So the wall only goes one way.

Frankly, the DoI doesn't count for much. It's not a legally binding document. And re-interpreting the constitution is part of the game. That's how we can allow interracial marriage, for example.

Funny the DOI doesn't count, but a personal letter from Jefferson to some baptists does? How does that work?

Let's not forget, either, that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" were added in the 1950s. Complaining that it's just a recent liberal kick completely misses where it started. Of course it's only been since the mid-20th century...

God has been in the US Government since before there was a US Government. And "In God We Trust" first appeared on coins in 1864.

[Carrikature]

how does that prove your point? The government is not trying to pass any laws establishing a state religion or trying to stop anyone (even those in that government) from the free exercise thereof. So the wall only goes one way.

Because establishing "In God We Trust" as a national motto counts. Because all of the "we haven't established it but we're clearly following a single religion" is close enough to count. That's what I mean by letter of the law and not spirit of the law, and even the letter is questionable.

Funny the DOI doesn't count, but a personal letter from Jefferson to some baptists does? How does that work?

You're crossing who you're talking to. I haven't said anything about a letter. There is a difference, however, between stating intent (which the letter is used to support) and stating beliefs (which the DoI uses).

God has been in the US Government since before there was a US Government. And "In God We Trust" first appeared on coins in 1864.

That doesn't make it ok. Slavery was allowed by the US Government before there was a US Government, too. That's not a useful metric for anything. The point remains that what you try to pass off as a 'recent kick' has a basis. It's not just people suddenly getting uppity about things.

[Tassman]

That refers to what the activist court has done, not what Jefferson wrote. You keep changing the topic. Don't you like to admit what Jefferson actually wrote and supported?

"What Jefferson actually wrote and supported", with reference to the Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court on numerous occasion as I've outlined above. You may not like it and try to dismiss the ruling as invalid one by an "activist court", but you are wrong. The judiciary is the third arm of government and it's role is to interpret the Constitution, whether you personally like its interpretation or not.

[Tassman]

I am glad to find out that a President can change how the entire nation and supreme court should interpret the constitution merely by writing a personal letter. This precedent means that Trump can decide how the constitution should be interpreted and bypass the Judicial branch at any time merely by writing a letter to whomever he chooses. He should write a letter about the 14th amendment, then they would have no choice but to approve his executive order on immigration.

Right Tassman?

But that's not what happened. The Supreme Court accepted Jefferson's interpretation of the Establishment Clause as a valid interpretation...several times. It may just as easily have not accepted it as valid and disregarded the letter, but it didn't.

[Jedidiah]

But that's not what happened. The Supreme Court accepted Jefferson's interpretation of the Establishment Clause as a valid interpretation...several times. It may just as easily have not accepted it as valid and disregarded the letter, but it didn't.

That is not what happened. The activist Supreme Court changed what the entire government, including the Supreme Court, saw as the meaning of the "Establishment Clause" for the previous history of the United States of America. That is called activism and reinterpretation, not accepting Jefferson's understanding.

[Tassman]

That is not what happened. The activist Supreme Court changed what the entire government, including the Supreme Court, saw as the meaning of the "Establishment Clause" for the previous history of the United States of America. That is called activism and reinterpretation, not accepting Jefferson's understanding.

[Jedidiah]

Learn to read with comprehension. Then learn to respond to what people write instead of what you wished they would write. Establishment of a state religion would have to be done by the state.