rumitoid

The separation of church and state is not an attack on religion or a boost for a secular government. The collective experience of the Founding Fathers and their ancestors was the oppression of various dominations instituted by European Theocracies. They basically came to America to escape Christian persecution by the dominant sect (such as was the case for the Pilgrims and Catholics, for examples). The separation of church and state is not some secular revisionist's desecration of the Founding Father's intent but their clear intent.

They did not want our nation to suffer the same abuses. Yet they made sure to secure religious freedom of worship, which simply meant that any religion could openly practice their faith without fear of government suppression or interference. It did not mean they could set laws or policies for the country according to their beliefs. Our Freedoms, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, take precedent over any religious objections. If Muslims wanted Sharia Law to be implemented over how women dress in this country, would you fight for their religious freedom not to serve a woman without a hijab? Or to limit restaurants from serving pork? Do you think that not baking a cake for a gay couple is somehow different?

Jesus was friends with the lowest in society. His circle of friends were prostitutes, thieves and tax collectors. And probably some gays. That is who he came for and who we are to help. Not lectures or judgment but unconditional love. We have to trust love. God is love, and love is the Two Greatest Commandments. Love, and the power of God is present. Have total faith in that fact. Love, and let the Gospel change hearts and heal divisions, not our opinions and beliefs.

Copy and paste from:http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-leader-flunks-test-separation-church-and-state
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) delivered the keynote address at the National Prayer Breakfast in D.C. last week, and devoted much of his remarks to his recovery from last year’s shooting that nearly killed him. It was his faith, the Republican said, that helped him persevere.

But Scalise ran into a little trouble when he decided to share some thoughts on American history.

“This was a nation founded with a deep belief in God. Our founding fathers talked about it when they were preparing to draft the Constitution. In fact, Thomas Jefferson – who was the author of the Constitution – if you go to the Jefferson Memorial right now, go read this inscription from Thomas Jefferson: ‘God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?’

“You can’t separate church from state…. People would say, you know, when you’re voting on issues, how do you separate your faith from the way you vote? Faith is part of who you are.”

We also know that while Jefferson’s approach to religion was complex – see the Jefferson Bible, for example – his approach to religious liberty was straightforward: he was an ardent champion of church-state separation. It’s what makes Scalise’s reliance on Jefferson to argue against the principle so spectacularly wrong.

You’ve heard of the “wall of separation” between church and state? The metaphor comes by way of a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, describing the purpose of the First Amendment.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State,” the then-president wrote.

My friend and former colleague Rob Boston, a national expert on the issue, added this morning:

Scalise’s argument fails because Jefferson was one of the strongest advocates of separation of church and state ever to occupy the White House…. As president, Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for official days of prayer and fasting. “I do not believe,” he observed in an 1808 letter, “it is for the interest of religion to invite the magistrate to direct its exercises, it disciplines or its doctrines….”

Scalise relies heavily on a quote from Jefferson that is engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C…. What Scalise fails to realize is that it was quite possible for Jefferson to hold a belief like this yet still insist that freedom of conscience be extended to all and that the government refrain from meddling in religious matters.

Indeed, I’m not altogether sure Scalise even understands the constitutional principle with which he disagrees. The congressman noted in his remarks, for example, that when Americans vote, they’re inevitably influenced by their beliefs. That is, of course, true.

But it’s not an argument against church-state separation. The point of the principle is to mandate government neutrality on religious issues, allowing people to pursue their own paths without interference from the state. It doesn’t preclude voters from being influenced by their own personal beliefs.

For the House Republican Whip, you “can’t separate church from state.” In the United States, we’ve been trying to do exactly that for nearly a quarter of a millennium. Scalise may wish to change that, but if he does, he shouldn’t look to Jefferson as an ally.

USMC6976

He's right. The Constitution does not "separate church from state". It only prevents establishing or prohibiting the free exercise. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

vernon

All the article says is congress shall make no law.but of course you atheist argue there must not be any recognition of religion and that is not what it says.And remember the house opens every session with a prayer.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

There is a HUGE difference between establishing one single religion and allowing all to practice their religion as they see fit. It is however, not a madate that people be protected FROM religion by forcing that religion be only observed while hiding in your closet, when it should be shouted from the rooftops. Now only Islam can be shouted from the rooftops, all others must never mention what they believe in unless it is in church or within their own homes.

rumitoid

Huh? Please re-read.

rumitoid

Sorry, that is a totally bogus claim. Right wing Christian hysteria. You can still shout from the rooftop your faith in Christ. You cannot usurp our enshrined Bill of Rights to suppress or neglect other people whose life-style you do not like or see as sin. Civil disobedience, the willingness to face legal consequences for the support of a matter of faith, not against any person, group or act, is your choice. Martin Luther King Jr. did that to free Blacks from the segregation the Southern Baptist Convention wanted. Non-violence. For a principle and not against the bigots. Their fight wasn't with worldly powers, individuals or policies and laws, but directly with darkness. Blacks and white could not marry: that was the church pushing those laws. No wonder a separation between church and state was thought wise by our Founders.

free believer

The religious right has an equal right to practice their religion as do those whose religious principles differ from them. But they have to allow those differing in their religious beliefs to practice their beliefs. This is a core element in our Constitution.

rumitoid

Baking a cake: what Commandment does that break? It is an utterly absurd and disgusting argument to refuse making that wedding cake. Silly!

rumitoid

There is no "religious right": there is just Truth, and it has no sides.

USMC6976

First of all, the Constitution is a limit on the Federal Government and State Governments. Your rights stop when they interfere with my rights. And our Founders never separated church from state. They prohibited the state from creating only one church or interfering with the church. Individually, you can discriminate all you want. You can't discriminate if you represent the Government.

Owl32 Loc: ARK

the error is on your part. The Constitution actually says in plain language: the government shall not create a government religion, but in no way may they establish a church are create a law governing religion. Progressives want to godlessness as a religion where they can create new mores governing our life.