Maher on Christmas & Republicans Recanting the Separation of Church and State.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

26 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Do you believe there should be some sort of official 'test' to determine who's religious beliefs are sincere and "real", and who is just making it up or having other motivations? Do you agree with DeSantis that the Satanic Temple should be stripped of their religious recognition by the government?  

 

The only test to determine a religion’s sincerity it the test of time.  Is it sustainable.  Yes, I believe the Satanic Temple should be stripped of any IRS recognition for the same reason as stated above; if not any entity could declare themselves a religion and get the same exemption and I believe a lot have.

[homersapien 11,373]

23 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why does it make you feel so uncomfortable to acknowledge that the Framers did not maintain a separationist view?

If you posit that the Framers did maintain a separationist view, then point me to what you believe supports your position. Can you reconcile your position with, for example, the concluding words of the Presidential oath added by Washington, or the phrase Marshall chose to open Supreme Court sessions with, or the manner in which our First Congress chose to begin legislative session, or our First Congress's decision to enact legislation for paid chaplains in the house and senate, or Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation, or the language our First Congress chose when it reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, or the First Amendment's according religion special constitutional protection? 

 

The words of various politicians are irrelevant when it comes to honoring the principle of strict separation of religion and government as mandated by our constitution as currently written. This strict separation of church and state reflects a wisdom that is constantly evidenced by history - especially modern history - which provides clear examples of theocratic tyrannies.

As a country, strict separation between government and religion doesn't limit  our democracy, it protects it. Granted, we have often failed to live up to that wisdom - such as placing "In God We Trust" - on our currency (in the 1950's during the cold war). 

Such violations - including the ones you mention - are invariably motivated by politics.  Politics will always pander to the majority, for obvious reasons. But history tells us the course to autocracy/theocracy is also through politics. We are just blessed to have a constitution that acknowledges that.

We are the arguably the most religious country - or at least the most religious democracy - in the world.  That fact simply emphasizes the need and value to us to have a constitution that maintains a strict separation of church and state, it is not an excuse for ignoring it.   

It seems to me your argument for the proposition we are a "Christian nation" is citing historical examples of politicians pandering to the overwhelming Christian majority for political reasons.  In other words, you are taking the exact same approach used by self-identified "Christian Nationalists" - an appeal to the majority.

If that is your goal, I suggest you - and other Christian Nationalists - start with a concerted effort to amend the first amendment so as to allow it.  Citing examples of how we have frequently ignored or violated it does not justify eliminating it.

Perhaps such an effort to remove it will open the eyes of all citizens, including Christians - to it's true value as stated.  A true democracy respects the rights of all it's citizens, including those who compose a religious minority. The establishment clause is the only protection we have for protecting religious minorities.  It is the perfect compliment - arguably necessary - for the rest of the amendment.

A strict separation between government and religion doesn't restrict religious freedom or our democracy, it protects it.  

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

I have a question for you @icanthearyou; has the church you head applied for IRS recognition as a church and do you receive tax payer funding?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have a question for you @icanthearyou; has the church you head applied for IRS recognition as a church and do you receive tax payer funding?

I do not believe any religion should enjoy a tax free status.

Religions are inherently fraudulent.  They use god.  They rarely serve god.

You seem to be having difficulty understanding,,, I am not a "Christian",,, I am merely a follower of Jesus.  Christianity has lost Jesus' message of love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, charity.  Christianity is no longer about Jesus.  Christianity seeks worldly power.  Christianity is perhaps the biggest fraud of all.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

I do not believe any religion should enjoy a tax free status.

Religions are inherently fraudulent.  They use god.  They rarely serve god.

You seem to be having difficulty understanding,,, I am not a "Christian",,, I am merely a follower of Jesus.  Christianity has lost Jesus' message of love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, charity.  Christianity is no longer about Jesus.  Christianity seeks worldly power.  Christianity is perhaps the biggest fraud of all.

I know your not a Christian and that is why I asked if your sect was taking tax dollars and exempt status.

I would guess you are not taking any tax dollars.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know your not a Christian and that is why I asked if your sect was taking tax dollars and exempt status.

I would guess you are not taking any tax dollars.

I do not understand what point you are attempting to make.  Why would you believe I am "taking tax dollars"?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I do not understand what point you are attempting to make.  Why would you believe I am "taking tax dollars"?

 

I just said I would guess you are not taking tax dollars.  What’s the confusion?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

I just said I would guess you are not taking tax dollars.  What’s the confusion?

Again,,, what point are you attempting to make?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

The words of various politicians are irrelevant when it comes to honoring the principle of strict separation of religion and government as mandated by our constitution as currently written. This strict separation of church and state reflects a wisdom that is constantly evidenced by history - especially modern history - which provides clear examples of theocratic tyrannies.

As a country, strict separation between government and religion doesn't limit  our democracy, it protects it. Granted, we have often failed to live up to that wisdom - such as placing "In God We Trust" - on our currency (in the 1950's during the cold war). 

Such violations - including the ones you mention - are invariably motivated by politics.  Politics will always pander to the majority, for obvious reasons. But history tells us the course to autocracy/theocracy is also through politics. We are just blessed to have a constitution that acknowledges that.

We are the arguably the most religious country - or at least the most religious democracy - in the world.  That fact simply emphasizes the need and value to us to have a constitution that maintains a strict separation of church and state, it is not an excuse for ignoring it.   

It seems to me your argument for the proposition we are a "Christian nation" is citing historical examples of politicians pandering to the overwhelming Christian majority for political reasons.  In other words, you are taking the exact same approach used by self-identified "Christian Nationalists" - an appeal to the majority.

If that is your goal, I suggest you - and other Christian Nationalists - start with a concerted effort to amend the first amendment so as to allow it.  Citing examples of how we have frequently ignored or violated it does not justify eliminating it.

Perhaps such an effort to remove it will open the eyes of all citizens, including Christians - to it's true value as stated.  A true democracy respects the rights of all it's citizens, including those who compose a religious minority. The establishment clause is the only protection we have for protecting religious minorities.  It is the perfect compliment - arguably necessary - for the rest of the amendment.

A strict separation between government and religion doesn't restrict religious freedom or our democracy, it protects it.  

 

Again, if you posit that the Framers did maintain a separationist view, then point me to what you believe supports your position. Nothing you just said is responsive to that end.

This isn't that complicated. You chose to interject. Give a direct response--your thrashing about that strict separation "protects democracy" ain't that.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

22 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/thomas-jefferson-and-religious-freedom/

Thomas Jefferson has been closely associated with religious freedom for more than two centuries. In the first Supreme Court case addressing the religion clauses of the First Amendment, Reynolds v. United States, the Court unanimously agreed that Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom “defined” religious liberty and “the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.”^[1]

Jefferson’s commitment to religious freedom grew from several inter-related sources.

For Jefferson, an Enlightenment rationalist, reason had to govern in all areas, including religion. “For the use of … reason… every one is responsible to the God who has planted it in his breast, as a light for his guidance, and that, by which alone he will be judged,” Jefferson explained.^[2]  His declaration to Benjamin Rush that “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,” was made in the context of religious freedom: any government effort to control religious beliefs was “tyranny over the mind of man.”^[3]

Politically, Jefferson believed that the new nation required complete religious freedom and separation of church and state. Many historians note that the broad diversity of ethnicities and religions in the thirteen colonies meant that religious freedom was necessary if the union was to be successful. This is true, but for Jefferson the political necessity of religious freedom went further. Before the Revolution, Virginia had an official church – the Church of England – and dissenters from that Church (primarily Presbyterians and Baptists) were discriminated against and seriously persecuted. This deeply disturbed Jefferson. Later in life, Jefferson referred to the early battles in this conflict as “the severest contests in which I have ever been engaged.” Ultimately, this political controversy resulted in the adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the three items that Jefferson wished to have preserved on his grave marker.^[4]

Jefferson saw religious freedom as essential for a functioning republic. Without religious freedom and a strict separation of church and state, “kings, nobles, and priests” threatened to create a dangerous aristocracy. As Peter Onuf explains, “Jefferson defined the old regime as an unholy alliance of ‘kings, nobles, and priests’ that divided the people in order to rule them. Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom, … [made] possible the progressive development of that ‘entire union of opinion’ that alone could guarantee the survival of republican government.”^[5]

 

 

I am aware that the "wall of separation between church and state" comes from a private letter written by Jefferson, and that the metaphor has been divined by those who feel religion has no place in the public square. Thanks.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

22 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Before the Revolution, Virginia had an official church – the Church of England – and dissenters from that Church (primarily Presbyterians and Baptists) were discriminated against and seriously persecuted.

Indeed! As I noted, "the Framers were instead concerned with preventing the establishment of a national church." See, I'm not a total BS-er.

[Aufan59 62]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The only test to determine a religion’s sincerity it the test of time.  Is it sustainable.  Yes, I believe the Satanic Temple should be stripped of any IRS recognition for the same reason as stated above; if not any entity could declare themselves a religion and get the same exemption and I believe a lot have.

Considering you think a person is either Christian or atheist, I think your mindset on religion is a way too narrow.

 

There are a very wide ranging beliefs that people can have.  You nor the government should be able to tell me if my beliefs or religion are sincere.  

 

The government is purposefully vague in defining religion, and religion generally falls under the bigger non-profit umbrella for tax exempt status.  

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Again, if you posit that the Framers did maintain a separationist view, then point me to what you believe supports your position. Nothing you just said is responsive to that end.

This isn't that complicated. You chose to interject. Give a direct response--your thrashing about that strict separation "protects democracy" ain't that.  

How about the words of the first amendment in the ******* constitution? 

Are you suggesting we simply ignore their literal meaning?

As far as the founders being "separationists" - or not - how is that relevant to the question of what the constitution literally says which is not contingent on anything you've been arguing. 

If your argument is that we don't have a constitutional mandate to separate church and state you haven't provided a serious case.  Speeches to the contrary are no more compelling - or relevant - to this issue than are speeches advocating banning a religion, no matter who made them.

Or as you would say, your argument "ain't that".

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

9 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Considering you think a person is either Christian or atheist, I think your mindset on religion is a way too narrow.

Where did you come up with that assumption?  It is false.

10 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

You nor the government should be able to tell me if my beliefs or religion are sincere.  

 

The government is purposefully vague in defining religion, and religion generally falls under the bigger non-profit umbrella for tax exempt status.

Im not telling you what to believe or how to go about practicing your religion, I just don’t believe; it much like you have spent a lot of time on this forum debating how my religion isn’t for you.

I agree the government should not be able to sanction any religion as such, but it has for tax purposes and, unfortunately, all religions are now beholding to the government.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I am aware that the "wall of separation between church and state" comes from a private letter written by Jefferson, and that the metaphor has been divined by those who feel religion has no place in the public square. Thanks.

Well at least you are slick with logical errors.

Is this what lawyers do to escape from the constant demand of thinking?

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Indeed! As I noted, "the Framers were instead concerned with preventing the establishment of a national church." See, I'm not a total BS-er.

Which the amendment does.

Now, what's the key difference between a "national religion" and a religion upon whom the government bestows positive consideration that is not available to alternative religions?

Edited December 20, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Indeed! As I noted, "the Framers were instead concerned with preventing the establishment of a national church." See, I'm not a total BS-er.

Yep.

I'd say about 90-95% BS.

[Aufan59 62]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Where did you come up with that assumption?  It is false.

Im not telling you what to believe or how to go about practicing your religion, I just don’t believe; it much like you have spent a lot of time on this forum debating how my religion isn’t for you.

I agree the government should not be able to sanction any religion as such, but it has for tax purposes and, unfortunately, all religions are now beholding to the government.

 

It was based on you saying if you haven’t heard of Christianity, you are an atheist:

On 12/17/2023 at 9:17 AM, I_M4_AU said:

No, parts of the world have not heard of Christianity and would, therefore, be considered atheists.  

There is far more to religion and belief systems than this.

 

How does tax exemption make religions beholden to the government?  If they don’t want to follow non-profit rules, and become political for example, they are more than welcome to do so.  They just need to pay taxes.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Aufan59

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

As far as the founders being "separationists" - or not - how is that relevant to the question of what the constitution literally says which is not contingent on anything you've been arguing.

Homer, this entire issue derived from a question I asked DKW. If you think it’s a waste of time, why interject yourself into our discussion? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yep.

I'd say about 90-95% BS.

As the saying goes, “you can’t BS a BS-er.” I’m in good company. 
*Looking at you

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

How about the words of the first amendment in the ******* constitution? 

You mean the words that protect religion (and no other manner of belief)? 
 

Also, are you going to address the actual inquiry or not? You don’t get to interject and then cry “irrelevant!” No sir, no sir, old pal.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

52 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

It was based on you saying if you haven’t heard of Christianity, you are an atheist:

The quote was taken out of context as we were talking about Christianity and the poster I was talking with understood this.  He mentioned there were other religions and I agreed.

52 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

There is far more to religion and belief systems than this.

I know this and have for a while.

 

55 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

How does tax exemption make religions beholden to the government?

What the government grants, it can withhold at their will.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/19/2023 at 9:40 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Homer, this entire issue derived from a question I asked DKW. If you think it’s a waste of time, why interject yourself into our discussion? 

I don't recall saying it was a "waste of time".  Can you quote that for me?

As for interjecting myself, this is a political forum.  I have a right - if not duty - to interject myself when someone such as yourself tries to undermine basic founding principles or our country - in this case, strict separation of church and state.

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

13 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You mean the words that protect religion (and no other manner of belief)? 
 

Also, are you going to address the actual inquiry or not? You don’t get to interject and then cry “irrelevant!” No sir, no sir, old pal.

Can you site the part of the constitution that restricts the concept of "religion" to specific churches?  You underestimate the wisdom of the founders.  They didn't think in the same picayune manner that you apparently do.

Address what "inquiry"?

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't recall saying it was a "waste of time".  Can you quote that for me?s

As for interjecting myself, this is a political forum.  I have a right - if not duty - to interject myself when someone such as yourself tries to undermine basic founding principles or our country - in this case, strict separation of church and state.

 

Undermining basic founding principles by contending the Framers didn’t maintain a separationist view and citing facts supporting my position? 
😂😂😂😂