They Are Going After The Churches:

[seer]

This longish article suggests that religious freedom is an evolving tradition and that people have had various opinions of it over time. It seems that opposition to state established churches grew rapidly shortly after the Constitution.

http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/...199329175-e-29

I'm not sure what to make of some of the claims in your link:

For instance:

George Washington

This leads one to believe that Washington subscribed to this separation model, which he decidedly didn't on the state level where he supported a Church tax.

George Washington in Support of Tax-Supported Religion

In this letter George Washington informs his friend and neighbor, George Mason, in the midst of the public agitation over Patrick Henry's general assessment bill, that he does not, in principle, oppose "making people pay towards the support of that which they profess," although he considers it "impolitic" to pass a measure that will disturb public tranquility.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

[Sparko]

This longish article suggests that religious freedom is an evolving tradition and that people have had various opinions of it over time. It seems that opposition to state established churches grew rapidly shortly after the Constitution.

http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/...199329175-e-29



Wouldn't that be the Fourteenth Amendment?

The 14th amendment protects individuals rights but doesn't say anything about State churches.

[Mountain Man]

This leads one to believe that Washington subscribed to this separation model, which he decidedly didn't on the state level where he supported a Church tax.

Then there's Washington's 1779 speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs where he said:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."
(http://christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html)

So it would seem that Washington did not hold to the contemporary liberal view of "separation of church and state".

[The Thinker]

No, you're totally ignoring one of the clauses, and forcing your own interpretation. That is intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not ignoring anything. Separation of church and state is perfectly compatible with the free exercise of religion, you just can't use your religion to create a law or get the government to recognize or support any religions. It's a very simple principle, I don't know why it's so hard for you to get it.

[The Thinker]

no silly

that is just how you read it. it is very clear that the people's right to bear arms shall not be abridged because a militia needs well armed people. and if you knew anything about militias they are formed when needed from a pool of ordinary citizens, who need guns. Only you have a hard time grasping that.

Then why not just say individuals have the right to bear arms, with or without a well regulated militia?

[Cow Poke]

Then why not just say individuals have the right to bear arms, with or without a well regulated militia?

Why not just say "only" members of a militia can have weapons? They left it open.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not ignoring anything.

Yes, you are.

Separation of church

Those words are nowhere in the Constitution, amended or not.

and state is perfectly compatible with the free exercise of religion, you just can't use your religion to create a law or get the government to recognize or support any religions.

That's the 'establishment' clause -- you are, indeed, ignoring the 'prohibition' clause.

It's a very simple principle, I don't know why it's so hard for you to get it.

Because you are so one-minded it's not even funny.

[seer]

I'm not ignoring anything. Separation of church and state is perfectly compatible with the free exercise of religion...

Except if you have a bake sale that is open to the public, then you have to accommodate male trans in your ladies bathroom.

[The Thinker]

lol, you keep telling yourself that. the only thing they have in common is not going to church. That is like saying the biggest voting block in the country is people who don't wear ties and they all will vote the same against big business.

I don't have to believe it on faith like you do with your religion and god. I have evidence. For example, the religiously unaffiliated vote overwhelmingly democratic:

Exit-polls-262x300.jpg

They are much more likely to think abortion should be legal and favor same sex marriage than the religiously affiliated and general public:

FT_16.04.11_homosexuality_religiousGroups.png

FT_16.04.11_sameSex_demographics.png

Views_about_abortion_by_religious_group.jpg

And as belief in god declines people tend to accept legal abortion more. See here.

I have no idea why you would think this is crazy. In fact, this is common knowledge to anyone familiar with voting patterns and demographics. Religious conservatives fear the increase in atheism or secularism precisely because they know that as people become less religious they tend to get much more liberal on the issues. So your comment is really ignorant as well as immature, but I guess I should expect that from you. In fact, I should be surprised whenever you say something intelligent.

[Sparko]

whats funny is that they (idiots like thinker) are trying to say that a bake sale is not a religious ceremony, but a secular one, so the first amendment doesn't apply and they have to accomodate trans.

Yet, if that same church tried to have a bake sale at a school, they would cry out that they are not allowed to have religious bake sale at a school because of separation of church and state.

[Cow Poke]

I don't have to believe it on faith like you do with your religion and god. I have evidence. For example, the religiously unaffiliated vote overwhelmingly democratic:

I am shocked. SHOCKED, I say, that the Democratic party, which USED to be the "God and Country Party", but was taken over by their extreme leftist loonies, would be made up of the "religiously unaffiliated".

SHOCKED!

[The Thinker]

Why not just say "only" members of a militia can have weapons? They left it open.

Yeah it isn't clear, that's why it needs interpretation. Same thing with the 1st amendment. And to interpret that we read the letters of people like Jefferson who inspired the amendment, and he clearly intended that to be a separation between religion and government.

[The Thinker]

Yes, you are.

Prove it with evidence.

Those words are nowhere in the Constitution, amended or not.

Agreed. Neither is anything about America being a Christian nation, or any mention of god or the Christian religion.

That's the 'establishment' clause -- you are, indeed, ignoring the 'prohibition' clause.

No I'm not. Nothing about what I hold on the 1st amendment negates the prohibition clause.

Because you are so one-minded it's not even funny.

No, you are just biased because of your religious conservatism.

[The Thinker]

I am shocked. SHOCKED, I say, that the Democratic party, which USED to be the "God and Country Party", but was taken over by their extreme leftist loonies, would be made up of the "religiously unaffiliated".

SHOCKED!

Yeah, Sparko doesn't think religious affiliation has any effect on voting. And that's because he doesn't think.

[The Thinker]

whats funny is that they (idiots like thinker) are trying to say that a bake sale is not a religious ceremony, but a secular one, so the first amendment doesn't apply and they have to accomodate trans.

Yet, if that same church tried to have a bake sale at a school, they would cry out that they are not allowed to have religious bake sale at a school because of separation of church and state.

As long as the bake sale was totally secular and they abided by the same non-discriminatory laws that regular businesses abide by, I'd have no problem with it. They couldn't hand out religious literature, or proselytize, or try to draw new members, or anything like that.