Face mask life hack

[sfzombie13 307]

i'm still waiting to hear the response to the separation of the church from the state that is desperately needed in this country.  or is that part of the constitution not valid @BIGUN?

[billvon 2,391]

44 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

i'm still waiting to hear the response to the separation of the church from the state that is desperately needed in this country.  or is that part of the constitution not valid @BIGUN?

"Separation of church and state" is not part of the Constitution.

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

"Separation of church and state" is not part of the Constitution.

 

Those words are not. But the principle that the concept is derived from is in the 1st Amendment. As you are well aware. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

[billvon 2,391]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Those words are not. But the principle that the concept is derived from is in the 1st Amendment.

The basic principle is that the US cannot pass laws that respect one institution over another.  No legal state religion, for example.  But there is absolutely nothing preventing laws that apply to ALL religions.  There's no wall, in other words.

[gowlerk 1,903]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

The basic principle is that the US cannot pass laws that respect one institution over another.  No legal state religion, for example.  But there is absolutely nothing preventing laws that apply to ALL religions.  There's no wall, in other words.

As I understand it there is a wall. And there is a dispute over how high it is. The rulings seem to suggest that the nation is founded on the presumption that a supreme being exists. However the government is not entitled to presume anything about that supreme being.

[billvon 2,391]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

As I understand it there is a wall. And there is a dispute over how high it is.

I would argue that there's no wall.  There's a prohibition against doing one specific thing, but nothing that prevents government from dealing with religion - again, as long as all are treated equally.  For example, the constitution does not (and should not IMO) prevent churches from being taxed, as long as all religions are taxed equally.  It does not (and should not) allow human sacrifice because someone's religion requires it. 

Quote

The rulings seem to suggest that the nation is founded on the presumption that a supreme being exists. 

What ruling were you thinking of specifically?  If the "wall of separation between church and state" has some validity because Lincoln wrote it, surely Washington's statement that the US was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion also has some.

[gowlerk 1,903]

11 minutes ago, billvon said:

I would argue that there's no wall.  There's a prohibition against doing one specific thing, but nothing that prevents government from dealing with religion - again, as long as all are treated equally.  For example, the constitution does not (and should not IMO) prevent churches from being taxed, as long as all religions are taxed equally.  It does not (and should not) allow human sacrifice because someone's religion requires it. 

What ruling were you thinking of specifically?  If the "wall of separation between church and state" has some validity because Lincoln wrote it, surely Washington's statement that the US was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion also has some.

The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

 

I can not now find a reference to the nation being founded under a supreme being. However it is that principle that leads to things like US currency having "In God We Trust" printed on it. And having Congress be opened by a chaplain leading a prayer.

Edited March 29, 2021 by gowlerk

[billvon 2,391]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I can not now find a reference to the nation being founded under a supreme being. However it is that principle that leads to things like US currency having "In God We Trust" printed on it.

I think that was more the principle that in the 1950's the US had to distinguish itself as being completely different than the evil godless Soviet Union.  That's when the law was passed that required having that saying on money.  (Before that it happened occasionally but was not the rule.)

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

11 minutes ago, billvon said:

The basic principle is that the US cannot pass laws that respect one institution over another.  No legal state religion, for example.  But there is absolutely nothing preventing laws that apply to ALL religions.  There's no wall, in other words.

Well, the words of the 1st A are:

 

Quote

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

After seeing what the 'Church of England' did there, both as an 'established state religion and 'prohibiting the free exercise of other religions, the 'founding fathers were likely looking to avoid that.

I'm not sure where you see that saying that they can't selectively apply rules to different religions. I agree on general principles that they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that they don't.
There's been a lot of prejudice & favoritism over the years. 

A couple posts popped up while I was composing this one.

First off, it was Jefferson who is credited with creating the 'wall' phrase. 
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24441#:~:text=The expression “separation of church,Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut.&text=Jefferson introduced the Virginia Statute,which became law in 1786.

 

And it was the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams that stated  "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

There have been a few SC rulings that reinforced those concepts, as was noted above.

I also can't find any specific reference to the idea that the country was founded 'under a Supreme Being'. 
But the Declaration of Independence makes reference to it. 
And while the actual religions varied, all of the founding fathers were believers of some sort or another. 
Atheism was very rare back then. 

Last, the 'In God We Trust' was put on the currency back in the 50s. The "One nation, under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance at about the same time.

It differentiated us from the "Godless Communists" when 'ole Tailgunner Joe' was conducting his purges (strangely similar to commie purges). (and Billvon beat me to this by a couple minutes)

[wmw999 2,119]

2 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

and Billvon beat me to this by a couple minutes

That's because he knows everything, and he types fast...

Wendy P.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 minute ago, wmw999 said:

That's because he knows everything, and he types fast...

Wendy P.

Yeah, I tend to think things through and look up stuff as I'm composing the post.

Fortunately, the new format notifies me of new posts and provides a way to read them while I'm still composing. 

 I'm not in a competition with anyone who is interested in intelligent discourse.

[wmw999 2,119]

Well, I was trying to be funny, because frankly I have a whole lot of respect for the amount of work Billvon puts into learning about stuff.

Wendy P.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

You aren't the only one.

[gowlerk 1,903]

The reference to the nation presupposing a supreme being comes from a ruling written by William O. Douglas under a case dealing with "Accommodation" which is the principle that allows for holidays on Christmas, Thanksgiving, and the many refernces to God in civic life.

 

In the United States, religious-based federal holidays and observances, including the National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving, as well as Christmas, exist based on accommodationist principles.^[11] Accommodationism also is seen in the national anthem since 1931, in the Pledge of Allegiance since 1954, and in the official motto of the United States since 1956, In God We Trust, as well as in the judicial oath So help me God as early as 1789.^[11] Notably, William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, sounded the "clarion call for accommodation" when he stated in his ruling:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state [p314] encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. (Reports 343 U.S. 310 [1952])^[12]

[BIGUN 1,051]

5 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

i'm still waiting to hear the response to the separation of the church from the state that is desperately needed in this country.  or is that part of the constitution not valid

Well, believe it or not, I do not sit in front of the computer on DZ all day and do not type on the phone. But, Bill covered it. 

[BIGUN 1,051]

8 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Upsetting your feelings is not discrimination against you.

This isn't about Islam or my feelings. I could care less your opinion of me personally, but to disrespect an entire culture is - discriminatory. You're just trying to wrap it up in a pretty bow. 

[kallend 1,622]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

. . .surely Washington's statement that the US was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion  . . . .

Wasn't that Adams, in signing a treaty with Tripoli?

 

Which makes it "the supreme law of the land" (Article VI, Clause 2).

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

This isn't about Islam or my feelings. I could care less your opinion of me personally, but to disrespect an entire culture is - discriminatory. You're just trying to wrap it up in a pretty bow. 

I agree that the comment you were responding to (which was not mine) was disrespectful of Christian belief. To me to say it is discriminatory would mean that the commenter only disrespects that particular set of believers and that some harm was done to them. I am grateful to live in a society where it is safe to insult the fantastical beliefs of the majority religion. It is not something I take delight or pleasure in doing. Even so, I will push back when Christians complain that they are not respected. You have to be kidding. Christians wield so much power in your country that politicians need to at least pretend to be Christian to get elected. Unless they are born into another faith, then sometimes a few can be successful.

[BIGUN 1,051]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I agree that the comment you were responding to (which was not mine) was disrespectful of Christian belief. To me to say it is discriminatory would mean that the commenter only disrespects that particular set of believers and that some harm was done to them. I am grateful to live in a society where it is safe to insult the fantastical beliefs of the majority religion. It is not something I take delight or pleasure in doing. Even so, I will push back when Christians complain that they are not respected. You have to be kidding. Christians wield so much power in your country that politicians need to at least pretend to be Christian to get elected. Unless they are born into another faith, then sometimes a few can be successful.

OK. Now I'm cracking up. They left the room and we were left arguing with each other and drifted about 300 miles off course from the thread title. . 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

20 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

This isn't about Islam or my feelings. I could care less your opinion of me personally, but to disrespect an entire culture is - discriminatory. You're just trying to wrap it up in a pretty bow. 

How is mocking Mohamed 'disrespecting an entire culture'?

Arab culture is a lot more than Islam (and Islam is a part of lots of other cultures).

Also, there are a lot of people who mock any and every religion. 

The South Park guys mock everything and everyone. 
I would say they are not discriminatory in doing that. 

I see discrimination as disrespecting one group while admiring the exact same traits in another group. Or fabricating derogatory things about groups you don't like (Mexicans are rapists). 

[billvon 2,391]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Hostility to Christianity in western society is not about disrespecting people. It is about being angry and fighting back against believers trying to force all of us to follow the dictates of their priests.

I think what many people miss about this is that there is a difference between what priests say and what people believe.

If someone here said "this mullah declared a fatwa against all Americans!  Islam is the religion of violence!" you would be quick to point out that one mullah does not represent all Muslims.

Likewise, VERY few Christians believe in (for example) the laws of Leviticus.  Even Ron, one of the biggest believers here, has an explanation as to why those aren't _really_ laws to be followed.  Most Christians do not believe in all the precepts of the Pope, or their Archbishop, or their Primate, or their Patriarch, or their Cardinal, or whoever their leader is.  (They have a lot of leaders.)  It's just their religion.  Most of them are not trying to make you follow their dictates. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

Most of them are not trying to make you follow their dictates. 

But they would if they could. Okay, not the merely nominal ones. But the leaders would and the followers who are presently harmless would just fall in line.

Edited March 30, 2021 by gowlerk

[BIGUN 1,051]

14 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Also, there are a lot of people who mock any and every religion. 

The South Park guys mock everything and everyone. 
I would say they are not discriminatory in doing that. 

Well, there you have it. I've been completely unreasonable for thinking that mocking another's religion isn't OK. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

Just now, BIGUN said:

Well, there you have it. I've been completely unreasonable for thinking that mocking another's religion isn't OK. 

No, it is ok to think that. It is unwise to complain about it here though. 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

52 minutes ago, kallend said:

Wasn't that Adams, in signing a treaty with Tripoli?

 

Which makes it "the supreme law of the land" (Article VI, Clause 2).

Jefferson. Sorry, I wasn't apt enough to think about the signing before I blew off my big bazzoo.

Edited March 30, 2021 by JoeWeber
I'm an idiot