church v. state rears ugly head in SC

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So license plates about reason are not the atheist version of license plates about Christianity, right?

Thay have been "adopted" as such by some of the secular humanists, but no, not really, since I'm sure there are plenty like me who can reconcile reason and our faith.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Oh, I checked. And "told" should have read "taught"--that was my bad. I had real teachers.
And as the intelligent people on here have pointed out, those words ARE never mentioned in the Constitution. It's debatable whether or not that's the meaning, just like "rapture" and "trinity" in the Bible (as also cited), but the fact is, the issue is not spelled out.

Look. Just admit you weren't thinking when you wrote that post and stop trying to pretend that
you really knew that the idea of separation of Church and State was in the Constitution. It's
embarrassing to see you flounder around trying to act like you weren't wrong. You were. Everyone
makes mistakes on this forum. Take your lumps like a (wo?)man and move on instead of
trying to argue like Bill Clinton about the meaning of the word 'is.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Look. Just admit you weren't thinking when you wrote that post and stop trying to pretend that
you really knew that the idea of separation of Church and State was in the Constitution. It's
embarrassing to see you flounder around trying to act like you weren't wrong. You were. Everyone
makes mistakes on this forum. Take your lumps like a (wo?)man and ...[text shortened]... nstead of
trying to argue like Bill Clinton about the meaning of the word 'is.'

Nemesio

When I'm wrong I'll admit it. (it's STILL not in the Constitution)

And When I want your opinion Sweetie, you'll be the first to know. 😀

Bill Clinton?? How'd he get in this discussion?? 🙄

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
When I'm wrong I'll admit it. (it's STILL not in the Constitution)

Don't you think what IS in the constitution does lay out a separation of church in state in meaning?

If so, where do you see the real difference between the concept of the separation of church and state and what is in the constitution?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Don't you think what IS in the constitution does lay out a separation of church in state in meaning?

If so, where do you see the real difference between the concept of the separation of church and state and what is in the constitution?

I fall more in line with those who see a freedom from religion implied in the Constitution, more than a separation of church and state, but I'm open minded enough to see how it can be interpreted either way.

As far as those plates go, I don't see it as a big deal, it would have to be in small letters, because it could not be used as it is supposed to be used, as an individual identification so it has to be an aside on the plate, like the state motto's on some plates. But there should be the right for non-believers to have one that says 'I don't believe' also.
As for the constitution, aren't you (Pink Floyd) just quibbling? You have to know the intent of the actual words in the constitution even though it doesn't explicitly say 'there shall be separation of church and state', the words mean exactly that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
As far as those plates go, I don't see it as a big deal, it would have to be in small letters, because it could not be used as it is supposed to be used, as an individual identification so it has to be an aside on the plate, like the state motto's on some plates. But there should be the right for non-believers to have one that says 'I don't believe' also.
...[text shortened]... citly say 'there shall be separation of church and state', the words mean exactly that.

I saw one of the I Believe plates this past Sunday, and the letters are quite large--easy enough for me to read without my glasses, above the actual plate's alpha-numeric designation.

All I did was post something that has been in the news here. SC isn't exactly a hotbed of liberal thought, so I thought it was interesting. But I still see the Constitution as a very black and white document. To me, it protects people against having to go to a certain (state) church, or to any church. But as for a full-blown separation of c and s, I just don't read that into it. But again, there is enough there that I can see how someone might make that leap. And I have no problem with it, unlike some people who wish to denounce any such separation.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I saw one of the I Believe plates this past Sunday, and the letters are quite large--easy enough for me to read without my glasses, above the actual plate's alpha-numeric designation.

All I did was post something that has been in the news here. SC isn't exactly a hotbed of liberal thought, so I thought it was interesting. But I still see the Constitut And I have no problem with it, unlike some people who wish to denounce any such separation.

The wording was scrutinized letter by letter back in the day when it was proposed and it is a compromise just like you would expect from politicians.
They cannot just come out and say something plain, they have to lawyer it up in gobbldegook.

I wonder what would happen if I went there and asked for a plate with 'I don't believe' on it. How long would it take to get arrested? But that is the defining nature of the theocracy, antithesis of alternate views of life.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I saw one of the I Believe plates this past Sunday, and the letters are quite large--easy enough for me to read without my glasses, above the actual plate's alpha-numeric designation.

All I did was post something that has been in the news here. SC isn't exactly a hotbed of liberal thought, so I thought it was interesting. But I still see the Constitut ...[text shortened]... And I have no problem with it, unlike some people who wish to denounce any such separation.

I would argue that religious freedom is at least proportional to the separation of church and state. I.e. the less church and state are separated, the less religious freedom people have.

The words in god we trust on our money doesn't directly impinge on someone's ability to go or not go to church, but it shows a preference by the state - and a sign of a establishment of a state religion.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I would argue that religious freedom is at least proportional to the separation of church and state. I.e. the less church and state are separated, the less religious freedom people have.

The words in god we trust on our money doesn't directly impinge on someone's ability to go or not go to church, but it shows a preference by the state - and a sign of a establishment of a state religion.

Couldn't the same be said for the etchings of Moses on the Supreme Court building? Or the prayers that open each Congressional session? Or Under God in our Pledge? Or the words "God Bless America" that seems to be the last 3 words tacked on to any presidential address of the past 20 years?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Couldn't the same be said for the etchings of Moses on the Supreme Court building? Or the prayers that open each Congressional session? Or Under God in our Pledge? Or the words "God Bless America" that seems to be the last 3 words tacked on to any presidential address of the past 20 years?

Couldn't the same be said for the etchings of Moses on the Supreme Court building?

Yes. Arguably the same as the 10 commandments statue that some state tried to put in their court house. However, this is something I wouldn't fight over just because it could be seen as historical.

If for some reason it was destroyed (I wouldn't hope for this or desire its purposeful destruction) then I would argue that it shouldn't be replaced as it was though.

Or the prayers that open each Congressional session?

Count my vote to end that. There's no reason why congressmen can't pray before they start on their own. There's also no reason to state sanction prayer in the legislature.

Or Under God in our Pledge?

Definitely a violation of the 1st amendment. Get rid of it.

Or the words "God Bless America" that seems to be the last 3 words tacked on to any presidential address of the past 20 years?

I wouldn't care as much about that since I believe the president, as being his own person, has a right to his faith and hence I can't say it's a violation for him to say that.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Couldn't the same be said for the etchings of Moses on the Supreme Court building?

Yes. Arguably the same as the 10 commandments statue that some state tried to put in their court house. However, this is something I wouldn't fight over just because it could be seen as historical.

If for some reason it was destroyed (I wouldn't hope for this o has a right to his faith and hence I can't say it's a violation for him to say that.

"However, this is something I wouldn't fight over just because it could be seen as historical."

Just because a wrong took place in the past, why does that somehow make it acceptable? It was wrong for it to have been put there in the first place. Correct the wrong as soon as possible.

"I wouldn't care as much about that since I believe the president, as being his own person, has a right to his faith and hence I can't say it's a violation for him to say that."

You lost me here. When acting as President, shouldn't the President adhere to the separation of Church and State?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
"However, this is something I wouldn't fight over just because it could be seen as historical."

Just because a wrong took place in the past, why does that somehow make it acceptable? It was wrong for it to have been put there in the first place. Correct the wrong as soon as possible.

"I wouldn't care as much about that since I believe the ing as President, shouldn't the President adhere to the separation of Church and State?

Just because a wrong took place in the past, why does that somehow make it acceptable? It was wrong for it to have been put there in the first place. Correct the wrong as soon as possible.

I meant historical as in Moses and maybe that it was of some artistic value. I would not object to them removing it. Actually, what they could do is move it to a different location or in a museum.

You lost me here. When acting as President, shouldn't the President adhere to the separation of Church and State?

When the president is making a speech he's not representing the nation and he's not making a law, he's speaking his own views. We elect people because their views are close to ours.

When the president speaks for the nation then I would expect him to make sure his views are separate from what he is saying for the nation.

I also would hope that a president, no matter how religious he may be, would veto any law that would violate the first amendment.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Just because a wrong took place in the past, why does that somehow make it acceptable? It was wrong for it to have been put there in the first place. Correct the wrong as soon as possible.

I meant historical as in Moses and maybe that it was of some artistic value. I would not object to them removing it. Actually, what they could do is move it o matter how religious he may be, would veto any law that would violate the first amendment.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't say as I understand your logic.

Historically speaking, Moses is very far removed from the US. I see little difference between Moses being on the Supreme Court building and a state courthouse having a representation of the Ten Commandments. There is a rather strong connection between Moses and the Ten Commandments. In my mind the implication is the same.

I also see little difference between Congress opening with a prayer and the President closing with one. I'm thinking that in a Presidential Addresss the President is very much representing the nation. He is usually explaining his vision for the nation in such an address. In this case it would be a vision that includes his religious views, however brief. Besides, you allow a president to close an addresses with a prayer and the next thing you know, he's ordering an invasion of some country because God told him to.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Maybe it's just me, but I can't say as I understand your logic.

Historically speaking, Moses is very far removed from the US. I see little difference between Moses being on the Supreme Court building and a state courthouse having a representation of the Ten Commandments. There is a rather strong connection between Moses and the Ten Commandments. In my ...[text shortened]... the next thing you know, he's ordering an invasion of some country because God told him to.

Historically speaking, Moses is very far removed from the US. I see little difference between Moses being on the Supreme Court building and a state courthouse having a representation of the Ten Commandments.

Yeah, moses himself isn't related historically, but maybe the engraving itself has some historical significance. I don't know. I don't disagree with getting rid of it when it comes down to it.

I also see little difference between Congress opening with a prayer and the President closing with one.

The prayer in congress is forcing everyone to either participate in a sense. When a president says "god bless america" I don't see it as leading a prayer or even praying per se.

He is usually explaining his vision for the nation in such an address. In this case it would be a vision that includes his religious views, however brief.

Yes. HIS vision, not the nation's vision. The nation can disagree and many can have different visions. He's not expressing the nation's vision.

Besides, you allow a president to close an addresses with a prayer and the next thing you know, he's ordering an invasion of some country because God told him to.

Aaah.. the slippery slope argument. I would campaign against anyone who said that god speaks directly to them. That is a sign of lunacy and very dangerous thinking.

I don't see one directly leading to the other necessarily. I would prefer that our president not have to say "god bless america", but hey.. people in this country are too prejudiced against atheists to elect one as president so we have to take what we can get.