Swordofgeddon #fundie

Swordofgeddon #fundie rr-bb.com

Separation of Church and State doesn't exist. The constitution simply states that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion. That means the President could constitutionally declare Christianity the country's religion, or any state legislature for example.

42 comments

old comment by Kimball Khan

Actually he is right, except for the first sentence. There is nothing stopping the president from declaring a national religion other than it being political suicide. However, it wouldn't mean anything; he couldn't make us recognize all holidays of the religion or practice the tenets of the faith. Congress could if it weren't for the establishment clause. And I don't know the individual constitutions of all the states, but i suspect most of them have a similar clause, and the ones that don't won't declare a religion of their state because federal support would be against the us constitution, as any support of the state would be support of that states religion, which Congress can't do.

old comment by Anon2

Taking into account that right-wing fundies are opposed to *everything* that comes from the state and the government, and see all of that as an intrusion into their personal freedom,

then it might not be a bad idea to declare a state religion ;-)

Furthermore, the european countries that still have a state church are similarly the most irreligious countries in the world (Sweden, UK etc.)

Usually, when the government takes care of something, this is one of the best ways to make people disinterested in it. Things that are organized by the government usually get boring immediately.

So as an Atheist, I'd say: Declare a state religion. As reading the bible makes atheists, state religions turn people away from religion.

</irony>

old comment by Angua

Separation of Church and State doesn't exist.The constitution simply states that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion.
Yes it does. And yes, I know that this exact phrase was never used verbatim in the Constitution. I know that it comes from Jefferson's writings. But he was basically explaining what the establishment clause meant. It's a lot easier to use the phrase 'separation of church and state' than to recite the establishment clause every single time you want to bring the topic up. I will never understand why the religious right thinks that they score such a huge point every time they point out the phrase isn't specifically used in the Constitution, when what is used in the Constitution is synonymous.

That means the President could constitutionally declare Christianity the country's religion,
Well, technically, I suppose . . . if he wanted to never be taken seriously in politics again and destroy his political party. The president could say that, but it wouldn't mean anything. No law would have been passed actually saying that America was officially Christian. So it would mean absolutely nothing. The president could also declare that America's race was Caucasian, that America's philosophy was nihilism, that America's drink was Pepsi, that America's shoes were Nikes, and that America's book was the Qur'an. The president would just be saying things. Stupid things. Things that aren't true. Things that can't be enforced because they aren't laws.

old comment by Angua

or any state legislature for example.
Okay. This. Just this. I have a real problem with this. This is wrong. I hear this all the time from the religious right and it pains me, because of just how freaking wrong it is. I'd say that you're arguing that you've found a loophole and are arguing from a technicality of phrasing that goes against the entire spirit of the First Amendment. You know, I'll even concede that this sort of States Rights approach might have been valid a hundred and fifty or so years ago.
You know, I read something somewhere, it said:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now where did I read that? It seems to imply that the "privileges and immunities" protected under the Constitution also apply to states. The freedom of religion is one of those "privileges and immunities." The separation of church and state is integral to religious freedom. The First Amendment makes it clear that citizens are immune from having the federal government impose any sort of religion on them in the establishment clause. Huh. So what this is saying is that the establishment clause also applies to state governments. What blasphemy! What complete disrespect for America's laws! Where could I possibly have read such a piece of liberal propaganda?

Oh, yeah, I think it was in something called the Fourteenth Amendment. You know, the Fourteenth Amendment . . . to the United States Constitution!

old comment by Angua

Hey, I just reread the original comment after posting my response. And what do you know, I found something wrong with it that I hadn't even noticed the first time. For all of Swordofgeddon's obsession with the fact that the Constitution doesn't use the precise words "separation of church and state," he also gets the wording of the Constitution wrong. He tries to correct us by saying that the Constitution only says that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion.

Well, first of all, when you are talking about an issue involving states' rights, you probably shouldn't used the word "state" as a synonym for "country" or "nation." Although those are indeed meanings of the word "state", when you are talking about states' rights, you're talking about what the nation and country can legally do as opposed to what individual states within the United States can do. If you use the word "state" to mean both, things can get really confusing, really fast.

Moreover, for someone so obsessed with only repeating what the Constitution says verbatim instead of what it actually means, the establishment clause actually says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," not "Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion."

Given that they mean the exact same thing, yeah, this is nit-picking. But if Swordofgeddon is going to nit-pick about others using the phrase "separation of church and state" because it isn't in the Constitution, I think I'm entitled to at least ask for some consistency here.

Also, I realize that he never says that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, but that it "doesn't exist". I'm just giving Swordofgeddon the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he or she means that those exact words aren't used because well . . . the possibility that Swordmageddon knows so little about the Constitution is too grim an idea for me to contemplate.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Separation of Church and State doesn't exist."

Oh! In that case, then you won't mind if government legislates your 'Bible' into being rewritten according to we Atheists' whims & fancies. And Romans 13:1-5 means that you have no choice but to obey our new doctrine, that is constantly changing to suit our needs, and not yours.

Because if 'Separation of Church and State' doesn't exist, then - as you lot claim that yours isn't a 'religion', but is 'a personal relationship with Jesus', then your churches have untold trillions in back taxes; backdated and with interest, to the IRS. And your very religion itself has absolutely no legal protections whatsoever, and it's open season on you & your ilk by anti-religionists.

And as for 'the President could constitutionally declare Christianity the country's religion, or any state legislature', then what was the point of the Boston Tea Party, nay, the Pilgrim Fathers coming to the New World, if for the precise reason to escape a state religion: that promoted by King George III in Britain.

@Swede

"English is not your strong point, is it?"

Nor History, for that matter. Certainly not in the 'hoemskuling' curriculum of Raptards, that's for sure. 'No Taxation without Representation', as per said Boston Tea Party, fundies? How about No Representation without Education? All those below a certain IQ level & educational standard, no longer have the right to vote. Stupidity is declared illegal (certainly along with Americentrici)sm.

Swordofgeddon #fundie rr-bb.com

42 comments

Confused?