In the interest of not derailing the topic of the other thread I will start a new one here. This is daytonafans comment in another post.
Just because the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution, it does not follow that the essence of what that phrase encapsulates is not in the constitution. I could write a poem about a beautiful day and never use the phrase "it's a beautiful day" in the poem. However you could sum up what my poem is about by saying just that. Also it's a bit ironic that the people who usually make this argument about there being no "separation of church and state" in the constitution believe in the "holy trinity'. The phrase "holy trinity" appears no place in the bible. Using their very own reasoning we should reject that such a thing exist! But I know religion has a hard time being consistent with itself and with reality so I'm not surprised by religious folks unwillingness to check their premises for continuity with reality and other held premises.The ACLU has taken up the cause of abortion rights on more than one occasion. Show me the part of the Constitution that gaurantees the right to an abortion. Show me the part of the Constitution that gaurantees the right to privacy. Then please show me the "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. These things were given to us by a run away Judiciary branch of government.
You said you like the Constitution Daytona? Then you should know full well who authored the first amendment yes? It was James Madison. So who better to turn to to find out what he meant by the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;., but James Madison of coarse!
Now what did Madison mean by "establishment of religion"? Does it mean simply not picking any particular sect as a national religion and that's it? Well not according to James Madison in his letter to congress on why he vetoed a bill to give money to churches to help the poor.
No law respecting a religious establishment! Not establishing a religion! Do you see that this is a major distinction? They way Madison meant it to read was establishment as a place or an institution.....and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
he continues.... ( emphasis added by me)
So James Madison vetoed a Bill that would have given money to churches to help the poor and he sites the first amendment as the reason for vetoing it! Are you convinced now Daytona? Who is it that is trying to change the way things are supposed to be again?This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.
Also I encourage you to read all of Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance. on what he thinks about religion mixed with government. the memorial and remonstrance was written by Madison explaining why funding the salaries of christian school teachers is wrong.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes from it.
Notice here the context of the word "establishment" as used by Madison here. he is referring to already existing churches as establishments!Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.