Something the American gov't has yet to understand...

[jeff]

... and I wanna see the moose!

Fencer X and Y: You miss the point. No car dealership (or book store, etc) is forced to stay open 24/7. A law saying they cannot is removing freedom from them. Labor laws that protect employees have nothing to do with law that says that certain businesses (in a crazy patch quilt of exceptions) must be closed on the Lord's Day According To One Religion. That's what's objectionable.

Weirder yet, you'll see supermarkets with food (legal for sale on Sunday) and sundries (not legal) where they cordon off the illegal aisles. Just very strange.

[lindajdunn]

That's different because it's infringing on others rights.

In the cases where it is Christian laws infringing, I totally agree, that's BS. Such as the gay marriage case. However, specifying certain times and places for selling alcohol and porn I would hardly call infringement, and not just a religion-based argument.

More than a few years ago, we had a sick puppy (Dachshund). The vet said to give him an eyedropper of some kind of alcoholic beverage every two hours. [I forget what kind.] I don't drink. We had no liquor in the house. It was Sunday and we couldn't buy liquor. [Closest state line ws 100 miles away.]

Do you have any idea how nuts your neighbors think you are when you go door-to-door with a cup in your hand asking if they have an alcohol?
One of the neighbors came over later because he wanted to see if we really had a sick dog.

BTW -- The puppy survived. I forget what was wrong with him. I very much remember knocking on doors, begging for liquor.

[I_luv_saber]

I don't quite see this as religion infringing on your rights as much as a community law being an inconvenience, but nice story!

[Fencer X and Y]

... and I wanna see the moose!

Fencer X and Y: You miss the point. No car dealership (or book store, etc) is forced to stay open 24/7. A law saying they cannot is removing freedom from them. Labor laws that protect employees have nothing to do with law that says that certain businesses (in a crazy patch quilt of exceptions) must be closed on the Lord's Day According To One Religion. That's what's objectionable.

But what about laws that say that a gun dealer can't be open at all in certain places? How are those laws any more justifiable then the law about the dealership being closed on Sunday? Are you saying that the only reason that one law is constitutional and the other isn't is because one law originated in the bible and the other didn't?

Let's go back to the beginning. Linda stated that where she lives the separation of church and state is non-existent because ministers tell their congregation how to vote. ILS and then myself said that it is not a violation of church and state but a community law. The dealership laws were presented as an example. Let's not argue about the tree and focus on the forest, shall we? I still maintain that everything that Linda described was not unconstitutional. If you would like to refute then let's do that but let's leave the car dealerships to the car salesmen.

[jeff]

I want to go back to the moose.... Was there, just maybe, along with moose also squirrel? And just how high can a flying squirrel fly?

Though, dachshunds will do just about anything for a drink....

[Fencer X and Y]

Common misconception. Actually, it's not. I believe it came from Jefferson first, in a letter to a constituent (?). I'm not saying it's not a noble goal, just pointing that out.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...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 legislative 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

So while the specific phrase separtaion of church and state comes from Jefferson the first ammendment does provide that congress can not make any law that would favor any religion.

However as stated above, I don't believe the examples that were brought up violate the establishment clause.

[Fencer X and Y]

More than a few years ago, we had a sick puppy (Dachshund). The vet said to give him an eyedropper of some kind of alcoholic beverage every two hours. [I forget what kind.] I don't drink. We had no liquor in the house. It was Sunday and we couldn't buy liquor. [Closest state line ws 100 miles away.]

Do you have any idea how nuts your neighbors think you are when you go door-to-door with a cup in your hand asking if they have an alcohol?
One of the neighbors came over later because he wanted to see if we really had a sick dog.

BTW -- The puppy survived. I forget what was wrong with him. I very much remember knocking on doors, begging for liquor.

That problem would have been averted if you'd take up drinking. You should consider it.

[Wetmelon]

Many political activities take place in church.

This only ok if the activity is led by somebody completely unaffiliated with the church and it just happens to be a meeting place. However, as you said, it's the ministers themselves running it; pushing their "vote this certain way or go to hell", which is COMPLETELY against separation of Church and State...

This is my point...

[lindajdunn]

Let's go back to the beginning. Linda stated that where she lives the separation of church and state is non-existent because ministers tell their congregation how to vote.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...175818,00.html

[Fencer X and Y]

This only ok if the activity is led by somebody completely unaffiliated with the church and it just happens to be a meeting place. However, as you said, it's the ministers themselves running it; pushing their "vote this certain way or go to hell", which is COMPLETELY against separation of Church and State...

This is my point...

It is actually completely not. Are you suggesting that the establishment clause should actually be used to prevent ministers from talking about politics. Wouldn't that actually be like the government making a law that prohibits the free excercise of any religion? The ministers can say whatever they want to. Your thread title actually suggest that you think that the government should make a law that prohibits ministers from talking politics, endorsing candidates, etc... Are you serious or did I misunderstand you?

[lindajdunn]

That problem would have been averted if you'd take up drinking. You should consider it.

I considered it and soundly rejected the possibility.

[Fencer X and Y]

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...175818,00.html

The prohibition against political campaign activity has been in effect for more than half a century and bars certain tax-exempt organizations from engaging on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates. However, these organizations can engage in advocating for or against issues and, to a limited extent, ballot initiatives or other legislative activities.

This is such a fine line that I don't think any one can truly enforce it. I guess if the minister would specifically say "Vote for McCain or go to hell" he would violate his non-exempt status (but I would again like to point out that in no way shape or form would he violate the establishment clause which is what we have been debating here for some time) Now if that same reverend would say "if you vote for anyone who supports higher taxes more social welfare and a universal healthcare system you will go to hell" then he's just advocating for political issues which is comepletely 100% Kosher even by 501(c)(3) exempt status.

And just in case I wasn't clear before I never, ever argued that churches should be tax-exempt. The idea of separation of church and state was brought up. You were arguing that not enough is done in you community because you still have blue laws. I countered that blue laws are not necesserily unconstituional just because they originate in the bible. They are fine if they are community oriented laws. If you wish to debate this issue some more please see my earlier posts and let me know where you think I'm wrong.

[Fencer X and Y]

I considered it and soundly rejected the possibility.

But think of all the puppies that you could potentially save by drinking

[Philistine]

{snip}
What is that about? Does religion play a stronger role in the US than Canada? I can't help but wonder if in the late '60's (when this statement was made) if this was the case. So why?

I'm not sure it's religion per se (though that's some of it), but the US has always had a very puritanical background. It shows up in a number of places, not just attitudes towards sex.

--Philistine

[I_luv_saber]

So while the specific phrase separtaion of church and state comes from Jefferson the first ammendment does provide that congress can not make any law that would favor any religion.

Yup. I was just pointing out the phrase is not in there, as it is a common misconception.

EDIT: Back to the moose... it's Alaska. It is illegal to push a live moose (dead moose is okay?) from a moving airplane, as well as to view moose from an airplane.

[I_luv_saber]

This only ok if the activity is led by somebody completely unaffiliated with the church and it just happens to be a meeting place.

So you are advocating suppressing the rights of one affiliated with a church? How can this possibly be right? Why don't we take this to it's logical end and simply ban religion, so we can be 100% certain it doesn't remotely contaminate the State? This can be so easily abused it isn't even funny.

"Well, you see, my opponent has a cousin that is a minister!!! He's unfit to run!"

However, as you said, it's the ministers themselves running it; pushing their "vote this certain way or go to hell", which is COMPLETELY against separation of Church and State...

No, it isn't. It's unethical, sure, but far from separation of Church and State issues. If you were forced to elect officials from within a church, THAT would be infringement... if you were unable to elect an official but one was chosen from within the church, THAT would be infringement. Electing someone who happens to be affiliated with a church is by no means infringement. This:

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

Is simply not being done. No laws are being passed that favor one religion over any other (or lack thereof) nor are there any laws that are preventing people from worshiping as they wish.

[Wetmelon]

So you are advocating suppressing the rights of one affiliated with a church? How can this possibly be right? Why don't we take this to it's logical end and simply ban religion, so we can be 100% certain it doesn't remotely contaminate the State? This can be so easily abused it isn't even funny.

"Well, you see, my opponent has a cousin that is a minister!!! He's unfit to run!"

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm advocating suppressing running the government on religion, which is what has happened since Carter took office!


I would be in favour of banning religion, but that's a separate issue...

[Bayou Bum]

Should laws not reflect the belief systems of the majority as opposed to a vocal minority in any country?

But what if the majority wants blue laws, etc.? Is majority rule only okay if it agrees with your position?

[Fencer X and Y]

I'm advocating suppressing running the government on religion, which is what has happened since Carter took office!

How is the governement run on religion? What does that mean? Please can you give an example.

I would be in favour of banning religion, but that's a separate issue...

Thank you for admiting that. But of course you do realize that you just made all your previous arguments compeletly void because you don't really want any separation of church and state, Since, of course, a government banning any religion would be that very thing of what you are accusing the american government of not "getting."

[dcmdale]

So while the specific phrase separtaion of church and state comes from Jefferson the first ammendment does provide that congress can not make any law that would favor any religion.

Yup. I was just pointing out the phrase is not in there, as it is a common misconception.

I agree that this is worth pointing out. The "separation of church and state" language has taken on a life of its own, often being taken as requiring an antipathy between church and state that isn't supported by the actual "establishment" and "free exercise" language.