1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + + +
Talk:Separation of church and state (view source)
Revision as of 23:51, September 6, 2012
, 23:51, September 6, 2012→Wrong reference
The supposition that THE document that founded the United States (Declaration of Independence) is not a founding document is absurd. Since the constitution is written in very plain English, it does not require a college degree to comprehend. The First Amendment seems NOTHING...it states "Congress shall make no law..." This does not mean anything other than "Congress shall make no law..." The concept of separation of church and state is simply an interpretation which, (while accepted by modern society), is absolutely forbidden by the constitution itself, and was, by many founding fathers, grounds for treason. All 'interpretations' of the constitution is a liberal interpretation. The conservative viewpoint is to not interpret the constitution, but to simply do what it states. (Somehow, liberals believe that taking the constitution at it's face value is somehow 'just another type of interpretation'). --[[User:Bufshof|Bufshof]] 21:46, 13 January 2011 (EST)
The supposition that THE document that founded the United States (Declaration of Independence) is not a founding document is absurd. Since the constitution is written in very plain English, it does not require a college degree to comprehend. The First Amendment seems NOTHING...it states "Congress shall make no law..." This does not mean anything other than "Congress shall make no law..." The concept of separation of church and state is simply an interpretation which, (while accepted by modern society), is absolutely forbidden by the constitution itself, and was, by many founding fathers, grounds for treason. All 'interpretations' of the constitution is a liberal interpretation. The conservative viewpoint is to not interpret the constitution, but to simply do what it states. (Somehow, liberals believe that taking the constitution at it's face value is somehow 'just another type of interpretation'). --[[User:Bufshof|Bufshof]] 21:46, 13 January 2011 (EST)
So if "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," then what does "establishment" really mean? That's the whole debate of the Establishment Clause which has gone back and forth since the Constitution was ratified. My take on it is, if Congress is not allowed to establish a religion, and if the US Constitution does not declare an official religion of Congress, then that leaves little wiggle room, does it? It can't start a religion, nor does it actually belong or endorse a specific religion, therefore there is no religion--at least that's what I have been taught based on a professor's 'interpretation' of the law.
Then, if Congress were to fund one religion and not another, or if they were to allow the practice of one religion's rite over others, then wouldn't they be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by favoring one over another?
Finally, one has to 'interpret' the Constitution because it was written 200+ years ago before modern society. It has to be 'interpreted' because the "framers" were sometimes purposely vague in their verbiage. Compound that with the vagueness of the language, I believe, is due, in part, to changes in usage over time of words and the construction of sentences. Its an 'interpretation' by people that the US Constitution actually assumes a Capitalist Society. Justice Scalia, to a great degree, and Justice Thomas specifically classify themselves as "Originalists" meaning they want to research and ultimately deduce the "original intent" of the Framers. Certainly, trying to derive the "original intent" of people who are really really dead requires some level of 'interpretation.' One can't send Th Jefferson a letter decrying why their church could no longer receive subsidies and be favored by their state legislature because he's dead and died 200 years ago. So unless someone reanimates Th Jefferson and can talk to him, we are stuck 'interpreting' the Constitution no matter what our political philosophy is, and even then, there is no guarantee that, after having experiencing death in this highly unlikely scenario, the man wouldn't have experienced a slight change of perspective and high might just have changed his mind. Then again, that too is an 'interpretation' of a highly fictionalized event.
== Rollback ==
== Rollback ==