Well first we have American companies that own the stadium, I did see that tickets were sold for this event, and there was a lot of fund raising done by Catholic school kids to attend. Security must have been expensive of course, probably a little more then for a ball game. The original intent of separation of church and state was to not have undue influence or control of the government in politics. Otherwise you could also conclude that the Bush administration's push for religious based social programs over the last few years was also in conflict. Now how do you suppose that 150,000 people could take the Eucharist from one 82 year old man?

The majority of this country still believes. Those that push for the absolute elimination of religion are still in the minority, they just have bigger uh.... lungs.

This post has been edited by Vicki: Apr 21 2008, 07:39 AM

One must remember that the Pope is also a Head of State, not to mention that he holds a highly honored position with many people throughout the world; in this respect, the Government's reception of him was not, I think, out of line or crossing the boundaries of separation of church and state (I believe Bush as received the Dali Lama). The strictly religious activities were held under the auspices of the American branch of the Roman Catholic Church, which body determined the conditions under which they were held. I am sure that Billy Graham's crusades were not without some passing of the offering plate to help defray the cost of holding large gatherings.

An entirely different story seems to be Bush's tendency to lead the Government to the pulpit of Christian fundamentalism- - - perhaps understandable, given his sincere religious beliefs- - - but not acceptable.
Z

There are many misconceptions regarding the seperation of church and state. That phrase is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. Here is what the Constitution says:



All that means is that Congress can not establish a "State Religion" nor can they interfere with an individual practicing their religion. Anything beyond those points is people reading into the Constitution what they want it to say because it suits them.

We have a brilliantly crafted Constitution...Its a damn shame we don't follow it.

That's not entirely true.

First of all, the statement "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" could just as easily mean that the government cannot deal with different establishments of religion. That's separation of church and state.

The Constitution was brilliantly crafted in how it was left open to interpretation. If there were no implications allowed, the government would have a severely difficult time creating laws to benefit this country. Whether you see that as good or bad is personal discretion.

While it may not have been exactly spelled out in the Constitution, the establishment clause was intended to prevent:
a.)Government sponsorship of religion
b.)Government financial support of religion
c.)And Government involvement in religious matters

Lemon vs. Kurtzman established the "lemon test" where
a.)Law must have secular legislative purpose
b.)It must neither advance nor inhibit religion
c.)And must avoid excessive entanglement

To achieve this, there are different methods used by Supreme Court Judges.
Sandray Day O'Connor supported the endorsement test, which forbids gov't practices that a reasonable observer would view as endorsing religion, even if no coercion.

Scalia and Thomas prohibits favoritism but not aid to all.

Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg favor strict separation.

(The last few parts of this came directly from my A.P. Government notes, if you couldn't tell by now. )

My friend, what I stated in my previous post is entirely true. Surely you will agree that in many instances, people read into the Constitution what they want it to say?

The term "separation of church and state" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson himself. In 1802 Jefferson wrote to Danbury Baptists: "Believing 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." I believe that our "interpretations" cloud the point. It is straightforward.

And lest we forget, the US Constitution is a framework for the central government. Anything not covered in the Constitution is reserved for the states. The intent was to limit the scope and power of the central government to impose on the rights of the states. Today we have that backwards which is not what was intended.

Of course when people read the Constitution they tend to see the interpretation as how they think it should be, and it's these differences in interpretation that often cause trouble.

Your quote confuses me somewhat. At first you said that the Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state, then you provide straightforward evidence than a founder of our Constitution created it for separation of church and state. Maybe I'm misreading something?

As for your last paragraph, doesn't our government have the ability to do everything they consider to be "necessary and proper?" Would the founders have created the elastic clause if they believed that everything not solely in the Constitution should automatically go to the states?

The Constitution was written vaguely for a reason. In that sense, it was very beautifully crafted.

Additional interpretation of the brief sentence that is important to the concept of separation of church and state may be gleaned from the caveats submitted by several states when they voted to accept the original Constitution; these reservations of the several state assemblies led to the addition of the Bill of Rights. Pertinent to our understanding of the intent of separation is the following example from N. Carolina (August, 1788):

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favoured or established by law in preference to others.”

It is clear that the States were not only concerned with the establishment of a state religion, but any kind of sectarian favouritism by the Central government, and incidentally based this right not on any on any Biblical reference, but on the equal and natural right of every man.

One might also read through the Federalist Papers to understand the concern about a central government interfering whatsoever with religion, and remember that many of the men creating and debating the Constitution were not precisely what one would today think of "Christian." Moreover, the Constitution provides that there shall be no religious test for holding office.

Cheers,
Z

[quote name='Sphinx' date='Apr 23 2008, 12:03 AM' post='16200']
That's not entirely true.

First of all, the statement "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" could just as easily mean that the government cannot deal with different establishments of religion. That's separation of church and state.

The Constitution was brilliantly crafted in how it was left open to interpretation. If there were no implications allowed, the government would have a severely difficult time creating laws to benefit this country. Whether you see that as good or bad is personal discretion."

I ws interested in Barry Goldwater's quotation in 1981, upholding the secular tradition of the Republic's foundation...

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. The are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today; I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism"

I guess Senator Goldwater would be a very outspoken champion for separation of Church and State. I'm shortly to read up on Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President, who I understand had some very forthright views on the same subject.

Edit for spellingQM

This post has been edited by Quietmike: Apr 22 2008, 10:02 PM