Quote:
Originally Posted by Follower of Jesus
I don't believe the state has ANY role or authority over religion.
|
What about the role of guarding the right of men to follow the dictates of their conscience and convictions in matters of religion?
Quote:
|
If and when church and state associate, it is a one way arrangement where the church affects the state. It should never be the other way around.
|
Where did you get that silly idea? David Barton?
Quote:
|
The Constitution prohibits influence of the state.
|
Please point out the words of the Constitution that you believe prohibits influence of the state.
Quote:
|
It also forbids the establishment of a state religion.
|
Please point out the words of the Constitution that you believe forbids the establishment of a state religion. Does putting "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins constituted "an establishment of religion", as the term is used in the establishment clause? If not, why not?
Quote:
|
There is a middle ground there that provides for some influence of the state by the church without it rising the level of the establishment.
|
How exactly is the church supposed to influence the state; and what subject matters, under the jurisdiction of civil government, is the church supposed to influence?
Quote:
|
The history of America, up until the 1960's, is replete with this level of influence.
|
I don't know what you mean. Please provide a few examples, my thoughtful friend.
Quote:
|
As I said above, I do not recognize any civil authority over religious expression. This is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
|
What about the authority of civil government to give you non-binding religious advice, such as to trust in God?
Quote:
|
The erection of religious imagery, to my knowledge and experience, has always been mainly one of the expression of a given community's religious heritage in public environs.
|
Do you believe civil government should have the duty and authority to decide what our religious heritage is, and express it for us? What if it decides incorrectly?
Quote:
|
I have never seen the state attempt to erect imagery in an attempt to control or influence the religious groups in a given area.
|
Are you aware of the recent legal disputes regarding the display of the Ten Commandment by the civil authorities?
Quote:
|
No, I don't believe the minority has such a right. As long as it is passive, I see nothing wrong with it. As I stated in my first post, there is no freedom from religion in the Constitution.
|
Is there freedom from government suggested religion? I thought Christians were supposed to take their religious suggestions from the one who rules over the Kingdom of Christ, not the civil authorities who rule over temporal matters and kingdomes.
Quote:
|
Somewhere along the way, the idea developed that people should never have to see anything religious in public. The Constitution provides no such protection.
|
Who says that people should never have to see anything religious in public, other than you and those who mischaracterize and try to demonize those who favor civil compliance with, and civil enforcement of, the Lord's directive not to render authority over religion to Caesar?
Quote:
|
I find it to be a matter of simple respect. "When in Rome..." as they say. When you choose to live as a minority in a given area, then I think you should afford some simple respect to the majority in that area to publicly express their collective religious convictions.
|
First, where did you get the silly notion that civil government has authority to decide what the people's religious convictions and then assume the duty to express them? Do you believe that one's religious obligations can be delegated to a third party. I thought it was a tenet of Christianity that one had to account to God for his faith.
Second, if God respects the religious convictions of the minority, shouldn't the majority do the same?
Third, if God claims the right to use reason and persuasion to convince men of the truth of the Gospel, doesn't that imply that civil government trespasses on the prerogatives of the Almighty, if it does the same?
Quote:
|
The government offends my right of conscience every day. Nearly every act of a government has, at its basis, a morality.
|
Only the religious conscience is exempt from civil authority. The moral conscience is not exempt.
Quote:
|
My government offends my religious convictions at times. At other times, it supports it.
|
Can you provide some good examples?
Quote:
|
As for the Godless Constitution, I don't get it. While the Declaration of Independence is not a binding instruction on the manner of authority of the federal government, it is a revealing statement about the convictions of the men who later wrote the Constitution.
|
Why don't we just construe the Constitution according the words in the document and the tried and true common law rules of interpretation set down by Blackstone, Rutherford, Coke and Middleton, instead of trying to figure out the convictions of men who have been dead for over a hundred years?
Quote:
|
And if so much credence is to be placed on the extra-Constitutional writings of Thomas Jefferson (where the separation doctrine really has its origin)
|
The Constitution should not be construed according to the writings of Thomas Jefferson, unless the writings were written prior to the adoption of the Constitution and constitute writings on "Subject Matter" as the term is used in Blackstone's Third Rule.
Quote:
|
then what of the profligate extra-Constitutional writings of other founding fathers which gush with expressions of thanks and credit to Providence, God, or whatever other name given to the Divine in that period?
|
The Constitution should not be construed according to the writings of "other founding fathers which gush with expressions of thanks and credit to Providence, God, or whatever other name given to the Divine in that period", unless the writings were written prior to the adoption of the Constitution and constitute writings on "Subject Matter" as the term is used in Blackstone's Third Rule.
"The ordinary rules for construction" decide the sense in which the words of the Constitution "are to be understood."
See Chief Justice John Jay's Written Opinion in Chisholm v. U. S. (1793), the first legal dispute to reach the Supreme Court requiring the Court to interpret a provision of the Constitution.
The question now before us renders it necessary to pay particular attention to that part of the second section, which extends the judicial power 'to controversies between a state and citizens of another state.' It is contended, that this ought to be construed to reach none of these controversies, excepting those in which a State may be Plaintiff. The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez