Separation of church and state ?

[bhsup]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So yeah, unless Mitt is gonna try to pass some bill making the LDS church the official church of the United States, his being a bishop in the church has no bearing on this. Also, have you any idea just how many ordained folks are in Congress?

Why make an issue of it now...oh right, I almost forgot, you're the dude with a kiwi up his arse about America and can't help but make posts like this.

Moderator Action: Not particularly nice.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

P.S. - "Seperation of Church and State" exists nowhere in the Constitution. Legally, it only exists in some Supreme Court writings. And since they can overturn themselves on a dime if they want, that's a bit shakier than actual Constitutional backing of something.

 

[peter grimes]

What the US constitution forbids is the US ever having a State Religion, where the state and church are basically the one and same, or the exact opposite, where you forbid religious expression.

For the most part, this is accurate. But interesting things start happening when you have state property. For example, there is right now a furore in Rhode Island over a school being forced by a Federal Court to remove an old banner that's hung in the school for decades that has a prayer printed on it.

If you want to get a sense of the views, here's a link to a local newspaper story:
http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/01/federal-judge-o-1.html#.TxB2EqWJfCs
The comments give a pretty good overview of how strongly some people feel about this. The high school student who initiated the lawsuit has had death-threats. From people who claim the legacy of Jesus Christ. Insane.

 

[warpus]

P.S. - "Seperation of Church and State" exists nowhere in the Constitution. Legally, it only exists in some Supreme Court writings. And since they can overturn themselves on a dime if they want, that's a bit shakier than actual Constitutional backing of something.

I'm no American, but from what I've learned about your constitution over the years is that the interpretation of the various paragraphs and amendments of the constitution by supreme court judges have to be included in any assessment of the plain text itself.

As such the interpretation of the text in question has to be that America is to be a secular state.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Robert Drinan served five terms in Congress. That didn't create a constitutional crisis.

 

[downtown]

Exactly. Herman Cain and Mike Huckabee were ordained. I believe Rep. John Lewis is also a preacher. We've had actual very high members of the Mormon church serve in govt (one of the current Apostles was a Utah Supreme Court Justice, and another, who later became prophet, was secretary of Agriculture under Ike).

I imagine we have at least 3 Mormons in Congress who have been Bishops, or even higher, before.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm no American, but from what I've learned about your constitution over the years is that the interpretation of the various paragraphs and amendments of the constitution by supreme court judges have to be included in any assessment of the plain text itself.

Yes, you are correct. There's an important principle, called 'stare decisis' which means 'let the decision stand', that restrains the current judges from re-interpreting previous judges' rulings. The recent case of Citizen's United was notable because it was a rare example of a sitting court re-opening a case that had already been decided.

The principle of precedent also means that this:

Legally, it only exists in some Supreme Court writings. And since they can overturn themselves on a dime if they want, that's a bit shakier than actual Constitutional backing of something.

misrepresents the actual practice.

I'm sure people with actual legal training and experience would be able to offer a more complete explanation.

Where's JollyRoger?

 

[otago]

Yeah, if we had the OPs way any member of the church/mosque/synagogue would be barred from office. Thats just insanity

Hell I would love a Muslim to be a minister of the crown just to wind up the Christians who rant that NZ born Muslims are not loyal to the crown.
I would like us to copy what Switzerland has done and ban ALL missionaries from other countries coming to NZ.
Far too often those missionaries prey on the uneducated trying to get then to join their so called church/cult.
That 10% of even low incomes add up.

 

[Quackers]

Did you just start a sentance with "hell"?
Hand in your Majesty's passport at the door and gtfo to USA.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The United States has actually had a couple Roman Catholic Priests serve in congress without giving up their role in the clergy. This does not happen anymore not because of US law, but because of the Vatican. The Magisterium was very upset that the first Priest in Congress, the Jesuit Robert Frederick Drinan, was not only Pro-Choice but supported government funded abortions. They did not approve of how he led many American Catholics away from Church Dogma into being liberal cafeteria Catholics like the Kennedys. In 1980 Pope John Paul II demanded that all Catholic priests withdraw from electoral politics, forcing Drinan to give up on reelection lest he be laicized.

 

[LucyDuke]

There is no such clause in the US constitution. All the US constitution forbids is the stopping of free expression of religion.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Not one of those quotes disagree with what I said. What the US constitution forbids is the US ever having a State Religion, where the state and church are basically the one and same, or the exact opposite, where you forbid religious expression. The whole point of the the founding fathers was not to have a situation where one religion is the state, like what happened in much of Europe, thus limiting free speech. A President can be religious, since many of the founding fathers were and so were many of the Presidents.

You said "All the US constitution forbids is the stopping of free expression of religion.", which is wrong. Like Smellincoffee said, the Constitution also forbids any religious qualifications impacting someone's eligibility for office.

 

[Traitorfish]

P.S. - "Seperation of Church and State" exists nowhere in the Constitution. Legally, it only exists in some Supreme Court writings. And since they can overturn themselves on a dime if they want, that's a bit shakier than actual Constitutional backing of something.

That's still the law of the land as long as it stands, so I don't think that this sort of casual dismissal is entirely warranted. Just because it's a common law system doesn't mean that the law exists only to the extent that it's rhetorically convenient.

 

[kochman]

You said "All the US constitution forbids is the stopping of free expression of religion.", which is wrong. Like Smellincoffee said, the Constitution also forbids any religious qualifications impacting someone's eligibility for office.

religion cannot disqualify you... nor can it qualify you... it is separate from your election in the eyes of the law (but not the voters, obviously).

 

[Berzerker]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The Pledge of Allegiance recited by public school children violates the establishment clause, "In God We Trust" on coins does not... The difference being the Pledge is a coerced daily affirmation to the state and its "God" while mere words on a coin (or symbols) make no demands upon us. Thats how I read the establishment clause, and when I hear politicians defending laws they want with references to their damn religion, I know I'm listening to a theocrat and threat to the 1st Amendment..

 

[kochman]

The Pledge of Allegiance recited by public school children violates the establishment clause, "In God We Trust" on coins does not... The difference being the Pledge is a coerced daily affirmation to the state and its "God" while mere words on a coin (or symbols) make no demands upon us. Thats how I read the establishment clause, and when I hear politicians defending laws they want with references to their damn religion, I know I'm listening to a theocrat and threat to the 1st Amendment..

Uh... but you don't have to say the pledge...
I had classmates who didn't exactly for religious reasons.

 

[Berzerker]

Its still coerced, an agent of the state tells children to stand every day and swear their allegiance to the state and its god. That goes too far, that establishes religion. Why not an agent of the state knocking on your day all the time telling you to take that oath?

The irony is that it was Christians who challenged the Pledge before God was even put in it.

 

[kochman]

Its still coerced, an agent of the state tells children to stand every day and swear their allegiance to the state and its god. That goes too far, that establishes religion. Why not an agent of the state knocking on your day all the time telling you to take that oath?

The irony is that it was Christians who challenged the Pledge before God was even put in it.

Nonsense... coercion... teachers agents of the states... you exaggerate.

 

[peter grimes]

From what I recall, there wasn't even a 'Pledge Of Allegiance' until sometime in the early 20th century, coinciding with the rise of state nationalism in Europe.

I could be wrong, though...

 

[Cutlass]

From what I recall, there wasn't even a 'Pledge Of Allegiance' until sometime in the early 20th century, coinciding with the rise of state nationalism in Europe.

I could be wrong, though...

Worse than that. "Under God" wasn't inserted until the red baiting of the 1950s.

 

[kochman]

Worse than that. "Under God" wasn't inserted until the red baiting of the 1950s.

"Worse than that"... ahahhahahahaahaaa.
Come on, is it really so bad?
You guys need to lighten up. It is a deist thing to say, anyhow... any monotheistic religion fits... and it's not mandated for the sake of polys and atheists.

 

[LucyDuke]

It's still creepy and pointless.