But That's None Of My Business

Preach Kermit preach!

"What is this constitution you speak of?"

"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."
That is the 1st amendment in its entirety. In addition to forbidding government to establish religion it also forbids government to interfere with "the free exercise" of religion. The interpretation is that the government cannot force someone to do something against their religion. Not by any law or mandate. Therefore based upon the amendment alone the government cannot decide that a Muslim restaurant must serve a Christian pastor a pulled pork sandwich. Nor can it force a Christian band to perform at a gay wedding. Most people have no issue serving diverse people. Some do. If the people who have a problem truly believe that they are being forced to do something that is totally against their religion that would be illegal based upon the bill of rights.
Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am an atheist and have no problem whatsoever with religion or practitioners of religion.

But it does work both ways. Beyond small idiocracies like mentioning God on money the religious cannot dictate governmental action on a federal level. They can try. Hence the many bills proposing reversal of roe v wade or the defense of marriage acts many lawmakers are trying to enact. Trying being the operative word.
The founding fathers were brilliant and recognized their own strong beliefs to possibly be a hindrance to the fair by the people republic for which they were fighting. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of justice and law. They passed civil rights with brown board of Ed. Women's rights,roe v wade. Gay rights,repeal of DOMA. The states have autonomy to pass laws but smart people know to fight back through the justice system that's where the power truly lies. We have a government of checks and balances it does work the vast majority of the time.

The constitution reflects federal policy. The laws I mentioned were enacted by the Supreme Court in response to lower courts and more localized government passing laws later found to be unconstitutional. Segregation anti abortion anti gay laws existed (still do) on a lower level. The states have total autonomy to pass laws. This is to avoid a monarchy or dictatorship. If 45 of 50 states have the same law that doesn't make it federal. In order to preserve rights the people have to LEGALLY challenge laws passed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Even then there is s possibility of reversal ie:prohibition.

See what I did there?

The right to have religious beliefs is absolute. The right to act on those beliefs is not. However the government has to have " compelling interest" that forcing a believer to go against their beliefs is necessary and proper. This is easily proven in satanic ritual where human sacrifice might be a part of the belief. Not so much elsewhere. The federal govt will not force the baker or the Muslim butcher to go against their beliefs. The states may provide their own laws prohibiting or permitting those actions. Only if the Supreme Court rules will the question be answered. Even then the states can wiggle the rules.

And its nice to see someone else who gets it right. Congrats and thank you.

This meme sounds like it's in reply to something.

In a way it is. If you look at my last Picard WTF meme you'll seen a semi heated exchange between me and Tttony and another user...can't remember his name.

Thanks. I just didn't get why the statement would be controversial.

I'm guessing because anything that slaps the constant narrative in the face of those who are trying to change history, it's controversial. They teach kids in schools that there is such a thing as separation of church and state and there really isn't. Not the way they're being taught.

The "separation of church and state" is an ideal set forth by Thomas Jefferson. The phrase was used by him to reiterate the 1st amendment establishing the governments removal from religious beliefs. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. again I'm an atheist but I believe in truth above all. Here is his quote for those who also hold some truth self evident

The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“ "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 & State."[1]

The way the constitution works is that you have to include all religions or none Which one do you think is easier?

Anyways, because of this, if they were to implement say a rule in the book of Islam just because it's in the book, that infringes on the rights of Christians, Jews, non-believers, etc.
"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."

Don't mind me; I'm just here to watch flamewars unfold.

Correct, when the constitution was wrote; state levied taxes in the name of the endorsed church which distributed the welfare spending. The first amendment/freedom of a state church meant no American would have to pay into a state church fund, since state churches often claimed that people not living by the prescribed rhetoric were ineligible for ‘welfare’. In lay terms, our American forefathers believed in the possibility that welfare would no longer be needed (Democratic-Republican Party), that religiously blind states did better operating welfare money (anti-federalist), or the religiously blind Federal government did better (federalist).

The church was the original "welfare."

Please tell me someone on here gets this reference.

No

Here you go, get some awesome culture in you ;) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x365em1

Damn! I'm an atheist, but the amount of hate coming from both sides on this topic is a little over the top! O.o

The Constitution was written by Christians, many of whom were strong believers in their faith. The Constitution specifically separated Church and State in order to avoid two things: the State establishing a central Church, and any religion from seizing control of the state (which would lead to the establishment of a central Church). Neither of them is more important than the other because they lean on each other.
The separation of Church and State was a response to the taxes the colonists were forced to pay to the Church of England. As such, the State cannot sanction a religion and make policies based on religious beliefs. The State is meant to be run free of religious views so that religious discrimination or discrimination "justified" by religion would not have grounds in legislation or execution of the law.
Religion is a deeply polarizing subject, and has either caused or been used to justify some of the worst wars, atrocities, and other horrific acts throughout the ages. For example, the Crusades, the Buddhist Vietcong in Vietnam, the Inquisition, the rise of Islamist Terrorism and ISIS, and (arguably) the Holocaust. These are examples of what may happen when religion and government are too closely interwoven in a state.
The other side is that the State cannot interfere with the workings of the Church. The State cannot regulate what the Church teaches or preaches, who may attend, where and when sermons or services may be held, etc. The State is meant to have a Hands Off policy to prevent the abuse of power against members of a non-State-sanctioned religion.
Communism is an example of the State meddling in the Church's affairs. Religious bans or limitations cause tension between religious organizations and the State, which doesn't often end well for either.
One of the main ideals of the separation of Church and State is that the government takes care of the economic and social needs of its citizens, while religion tends to their followers' spiritual and moral needs. On their own, corruption will eventually sprout, but when combined the corruption goes from being one or two ugly plants in your yard to BEING your new yard. We are seeing this happening now, albeit at a much slower rate than during the dark ages, when the Catholic Church had a stranglehold on spiritual AND economic and social authority.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I agree with the second part of SpursFan's statement, but not the first. Neither should meddle with the other.

Most of the users here are being quite civil, with the exception of a few.

It's just that the ones who are misbehaving are being harsher than normal. At least it seems like more than the usual level to me.

I think I've made a couple enemies recently. Tttony (which I believe just deleted his account from what I see in the comment threat) followed me here from another threat. I think he's a user on here and Tttony is just an alt account.And there's a new account called "blankyourgod. I think I'm being stalked.

The government shall make no law with respect to the establishment of any religion. It addresses both sides of the issue. Tough luck if you don't like it. The government can't go near your church so keep your religion away from the government. I don't bow towards Mecca and I won't kneel for your silly little cross.

I don't really care if you now right now. When Christ comes back every knee will now. But I know what the constitution says .

Keep your religion away from my freedom. Not everyone believes in your fairy tales.

No one is forcing you to join the church or "believe" in one's god. You're delusional to think you're being oppressed by the "religious nuts."

I find it interesting to think that someone like you believe people like me are forcing you to believe the way we believe or to worship God and not think you're infringing on my rights to worship freely. If you truly understood the Constitution and the first amendment, you wouldn't be here spewing your hate.

*Cough* trump

Seems to me like it was meant to do both. They wanted to stop paying taxes to the Church of England. So they were making sure there would be no official religion. Thereby ensuring that laws wouldn't be made that favor (or establish) one religion over another. It's just taking our society a long time to come around to the fact that it means any form of faith system. That's why in god we trust is still on our money. Just like many forms of racial discrimination exist even though many laws have been passed that are meant to deter raciail discrimination. It's taking a long time to recover from the disease even though we have discovered the cure.

or scientist?