Right. Free speech is free speech.

It is because the Founders had very strong opinions on the US not becoming a theocracy - having seen the problems and abuses in theocratic countries in Europe.

Church and State are kept separate for a very good reason. Imagine a Southern Baptist President decides that that is how the US should worship. All the other Protestants, all the Catholics, Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc etc would suddenly find themselves in a powerless state (or even State). It's fair, it's right and it should not be removed.

True, but this goes back to the separation. If a religious leader expresses an opinion - that's fine. If one expresses the opinion as fact from the pulpit, the Church is then drawn into politics. The tax-exempt status is dependant on the Church not straying into politics.

I have no issue with priests and co expressing their political views from the pulpit. All they have to do is to give up their tax-exempt status. Shouldn't be too hard for them to do that, should it?

I wonder how many are attending by choice? Your tax dollars at work: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5...istian-concert

Hi,

Still opinion!

No where in the U.S. Constitution is there anything stating separation of church from state. Period! It has been a poor interpretation by the modern courts.

From the pulpit, it will be a major problem for a person to preview or present opinions for such. People can be persuaded easily and this is nowhere for such. Depending on the religion the whole persuasion concept for political issues can be different between religions. No matter the religion you will find someone that will abuse things. Morally there is a thin line for a preacher/priest/mullah to march with such influences. Each should walk life in a manner that is with love, honor and trustworthy not just believes. As for fact, if the material is true then why not? Nothing wrong with honesty.

It may be opinion, but factually there were preachers setting aside time in their sermons to advocate for a candidate in the last US election. That is a clear breach of the separation that is required for a church to be tax exempt. Unfortunately, these things are not policed correctly, or at all, so it becomes difficult to challenge the preacher.

[QUOTE=onebuck;4073601]No where in the U.S. Constitution is there anything stating separation of church from state. Period! It has been a poor interpretation by the modern courts.

QUOTE]

Then enlighten us, buck. How else does one neither "...make no law respecting an establishment of religion" nor "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" WITHOUT a separation of church and state?

Hi,

I'm not going to start another pissing contest with you. You have never been able to point anywhere in the U.S. Constitution anything explicit about separation from church & state. Just a poor interpretation as the courts have done!

The above quotations do not state separation from church & state.

Now that's an "opinion" Buck. Like I said, how do you NOT respect an establishment of religion, NOR prohibit the free exercise of religion, WITHOUT a separation of church and state?

You need to stop smearing our courts or start telling us what the real answers are if you are going to denigrate them.

Hi,

You have the right of an opinion as do I. If I feel the modern court has not made proper decisions it's my right to say so. I'm not denigrating but saying their interpretations are not what our founding fathers meant. Freedom means we have the right to choose and not be dictated too. That means the government cannot dictate to me how I will worship or not worship. Doesn't mean the religion or church can have the same privilege(s). If the state decides to dictate a religion then that my friend is what the founding fathers were talking about.
Why would there have been references within our Constitution or Declaration to God if there intent was to have separation from Church & State? Things have gotten where a liberal can make any statement but if a person who happens to believe in a greater power makes something that rubs someone then Bam. Separation from Church and State is their liberal mantra.

Smearing our courts, what do you think the founders did to King George and his court? Just because someone sits on a bench by appointment for life doesn't make their position or statements to be true with merit. Wordsmiths have been the biggest problem today. Add in a Lawyer who twists to the needs or desires then the mix is wrong. Add liberal and things get sour!

You still haven't shown me where in the Constitution the statement of 'Separation of Church from State'. Show me, not your opinion or interpretation. Don't even attempt with citing the modern court. Read some older documentation(s) or references during the times of the founders. Look at the founders diversity as related to religion and law.

My believe is that no religion may be established by the state or government. Therefore no religion may establish a state of government. We as people can establish a morality that will govern our people via established law by elected representatives.

message removed -------------

As the Treaty with Tripoli (1796-7) Article 11 says: The US was founded as a secular state and so it is perfectly reasonable and logical to believe that separation of Church and State were inbuilt very early on.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html if you want to see all the articles.

Hi,
That treaty is not part of our Constitution. Doesn't indicate separation just stated;
Doesn't state anything about separation. Establishing a position with the said people or nation that may have produced a problem between the two nation because of religion.

You're labelling court decisions as "opinion" and (to paraphrase) "that's not what the Constitution says." That's denigration. You are saying that the courts got it wrong. Now you back track, saying that you "feel" the Courts were wrong. Which is it, Onebuck?

I asked a simple question; How does one not respect an establishment of religion, nor prevent the free exercise of religion, without a separation of church and state? I did NOT ask about your feelings.

The fact that moral fiber -- from whatever source one finds it -- is essential to a real, functioning, democracy, has nothing to do with religion, as religion is not the sole source of moral tenents or behavior.

By the way, the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war, not of governance. The only prior federal governance document was the Articles of Confederation. It refers to religion or God twice; once to say that states will assist each other if they are attacked due to matters of religion, and once referring to the "great architect of the universe" at the conclusion.

True, but it goes to intent (and the post after yours expands on that!)

I think you guys are getting off track with this discussion.

Personally I think that the way that freedom of speech is used these days was not what was intended by the founders of the United States. Its primary purpose was to protect people from being imprisoned because they spoke out unfavorably about government. This was probably added because in the past people were imprisoned just because they disagreed with current policies back in Europe.

Mostly true. Remember, though, that "government" claimed unlimited power to regulate all aspects of personal affairs, from religion (from divine right of kings on down to how you took communion if a Christian), to who you could marry (21 US states barred interracial marriage as of 1967, when the Supreme Court came out with its decision in Loving v. Virginia), to having children ("three generations of imbeciles is enough"), to freedom to travel and migrate (California turning back Okies during the Great Depression). So when one says "unfavorably about government," one encompasses a historical scope that individuals today cannot really grasp.