The Perpetrated Lie of Today's Separation of Church and State

[Kenny]

1. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
   
   
2. John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.
   
   
3. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
   
   
4. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
   
   
5. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
   
   
6. Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
   
   
7. William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.
   
   
8. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
   
   
9. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
   
   
10. Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73
    
    
11. Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
    
    
12. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
    
    
13. From the Library of Congress, at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

https://www.givehim15.com/post/january-25-2022

Jefferson letter of wall of separation was not about today's separation but a statement that there would not be a "single denomination forcing their denomination" as the King of England did.

• Two days later, after he wrote that letter, he attended church "IN THE CAPITOL" -- which would obviously destroy today's lie of separation of church and state.(1)
• Numerous presidents and members of Congress attended church services there - for decades! - including John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Lincoln and others. Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties - as a representative of the people - to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.”(2)
• The Rostrum of the House Speaker was used as the pulpit, and Congress purchased the hymnals! I realize you probably weren’t taught this in our public school system, which now propagandizes and revises history, but it is true.Actually, the Capitol was used for church services before ever being used by Congress. Approved December 4, 1800, by both the House and Senate, (3)
• services began before the entire Capitol was completed and Congress itself could move in. Jefferson, as Vice President at the time and therefore leader of the Senate, approved it on behalf of the Senate. He attended the services for years, throughout his time as Vice President and President, (4)
• had a designated seat, (5)
• and was so committed to it he even made the journey in inclement weather. (6)
• Services first began to be held in the north wing of the Capitol, moved to Statuary Hall as they grew in number, and eventually landed in the House Chamber. It was, in fact, the first official use of the Chamber on December 13, 1857, with as many as 2000 people in attendance! (7)
• Services were interdenominational, speakers were local pastors or the House and Senate Chaplains, (8)
• and included women (9)
• and blacks. (10)
• Some churches were actually allowed to use it as their meeting place until they procured other buildings. (11)
• And when needed, the Supreme Court Chamber, then in the Capitol building, was also used! (12,13)

Never was today's separation of church and state.

 

[epronovost]

1. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
   
   
2. John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.
   
   
3. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
   
   
4. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
   
   
5. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
   
   
6. Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
   
   
7. William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.
   
   
8. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
   
   
9. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
   
   
10. Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73
    
    
11. Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
    
    
12. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
    
    
13. From the Library of Congress, at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

https://www.givehim15.com/post/january-25-2022

Jefferson letter of wall of separation was not about today's separation but a statement that there would not be a "single denomination forcing their denomination" as the King of England did.

• Two days later, after he wrote that letter, he attended church "IN THE CAPITOL" -- which would obviously destroy today's lie of separation of church and state.(1)
• Numerous presidents and members of Congress attended church services there - for decades! - including John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Lincoln and others. Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties - as a representative of the people - to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.”(2)
• The Rostrum of the House Speaker was used as the pulpit, and Congress purchased the hymnals! I realize you probably weren’t taught this in our public school system, which now propagandizes and revises history, but it is true.Actually, the Capitol was used for church services before ever being used by Congress. Approved December 4, 1800, by both the House and Senate, (3)
• services began before the entire Capitol was completed and Congress itself could move in. Jefferson, as Vice President at the time and therefore leader of the Senate, approved it on behalf of the Senate. He attended the services for years, throughout his time as Vice President and President, (4)
• had a designated seat, (5)
• and was so committed to it he even made the journey in inclement weather. (6)
• Services first began to be held in the north wing of the Capitol, moved to Statuary Hall as they grew in number, and eventually landed in the House Chamber. It was, in fact, the first official use of the Chamber on December 13, 1857, with as many as 2000 people in attendance! (7)
• Services were interdenominational, speakers were local pastors or the House and Senate Chaplains, (8)
• and included women (9)
• and blacks. (10)
• Some churches were actually allowed to use it as their meeting place until they procured other buildings. (11)
• And when needed, the Supreme Court Chamber, then in the Capitol building, was also used! (12,13)

Never was today's separation of church and state.

I like the fact you talk about separation of Church and State without even knowing what it is and what it stands for. The idea of seperation between those two institutions isn't a physical seperation. It doesn't concerns the private religious beliefs of various president or members of the State. It's a provision in which the law doesn't isn't dictated or otherwise influenced by a particular Church or religious tenet and that government will not financially or legally support or any specific religion. Yes, there is a seperation between Chruch and State if only because there is no such thing as a State religion in the US and religious freedom is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. You should have spend more time in the bench of your public school or used Google to actually learn what ''Seperation of Church and State'' actually means in such a context. It would avoid you spending several minutes to demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[Kenny]

I like the fact you talk about separation of Church and State without even knowing what it is and what it stands for.

That sure was a hyper link.

The idea of seperation between those two institutions isn't a physical seperation. It doesn't concerns the private religious beliefs of various president or members of the State. It's a provision in which the law doesn't isn't dictated or otherwise influenced by a particular Church or religious tenet and that government will not financially or legally support or any specific religion. Yes, there is a seperation between Chruch and State if only because there is no such thing as a State religion in the US and religious freedom is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. You should have spend more time in the bench of your public school or used Google to actually learn what ''Seperation of Church and State'' actually means in such a context. It would avoid you spending several minutes to demonstrate your ignorance.

You might try not jumping to conclusions and actually go deeper into history and thought. Have you ever looked at the individual states Constitutions? By our statement it would appear you haven't.

The very issue that was at hand was derived from what they came out of. In England, if the King was a Christian Catholic King... anything but Catholicism was a no-no. If it was Christian Church of England, being a Christian Quaker was a no-no.

To actually say that it should hot financially support a religion and then turn around and buy the Hymnals makes your point mute. To say that it shouldn't support Christians faith and then hold services in the Capitol and then in the House of Representatives, makes your point mute.

Maybe you should take your advise? "You should have spend more time in the bench of your public school or used Google to actually learn what ''Seperation of Church and State'' actually means in such a context. It would avoid you spending several minutes to demonstrate your ignorance"

 

[Revoltingest]

1. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
   
   
2. John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.
   
   
3. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
   
   
4. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
   
   
5. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
   
   
6. Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
   
   
7. William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.
   
   
8. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
   
   
9. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
   
   
10. Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73
    
    
11. Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
    
    
12. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
    
    
13. From the Library of Congress, at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

https://www.givehim15.com/post/january-25-2022

Jefferson letter of wall of separation was not about today's separation but a statement that there would not be a "single denomination forcing their denomination" as the King of England did.

• Two days later, after he wrote that letter, he attended church "IN THE CAPITOL" -- which would obviously destroy today's lie of separation of church and state.(1)
• Numerous presidents and members of Congress attended church services there - for decades! - including John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Lincoln and others. Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties - as a representative of the people - to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.”(2)
• The Rostrum of the House Speaker was used as the pulpit, and Congress purchased the hymnals! I realize you probably weren’t taught this in our public school system, which now propagandizes and revises history, but it is true.Actually, the Capitol was used for church services before ever being used by Congress. Approved December 4, 1800, by both the House and Senate, (3)
• services began before the entire Capitol was completed and Congress itself could move in. Jefferson, as Vice President at the time and therefore leader of the Senate, approved it on behalf of the Senate. He attended the services for years, throughout his time as Vice President and President, (4)
• had a designated seat, (5)
• and was so committed to it he even made the journey in inclement weather. (6)
• Services first began to be held in the north wing of the Capitol, moved to Statuary Hall as they grew in number, and eventually landed in the House Chamber. It was, in fact, the first official use of the Chamber on December 13, 1857, with as many as 2000 people in attendance! (7)
• Services were interdenominational, speakers were local pastors or the House and Senate Chaplains, (8)
• and included women (9)
• and blacks. (10)
• Some churches were actually allowed to use it as their meeting place until they procured other buildings. (11)
• And when needed, the Supreme Court Chamber, then in the Capitol building, was also used! (12,13)

Never was today's separation of church and state.

That's TLTR.
What's the short version of "the lie"?

 

[Estro Felino]

If there is no explicit article that states the separation of Church and State, this implies the possibility that there is no such a separation (if it demonstrated).


A constitutional principle is to be explicitly specified in the Constitution.

The first amendment does not say anything specific.

 

[epronovost]

To actually say that it should hot financially support a religion and then turn around and buy the Hymnals makes your point mute. To say that it shouldn't support Christians faith and then hold services in the Capitol and then in the House of Representatives, makes your point mute.

It's moot and no, buying hymnals or purchasing services from a Chruch isn't providing governmental support to said Church, especially since they were not purchased with the specific purpose of supporting a particular Church over the others. It's not giving legislative authority to the Church either. Using a public building as a congregation isn't having priests sitting and acting in the assembly itself. A building is just a building. The assembly is the political institution and yes, members of the assembly can be religious and have desire for religious services. What they cannot have is make their religion or particular religious view favored by the law nor give special legal authority to its priesthood.

Christianity isn't a Church, it's a religion composed of thousands of different Chruches. I would also like to note that other religions have given prayers in Congress, most famously Islam, and that secular introspection time were also conducted. Hell, if we go down in municipal level, even pastafarians have given prayers in city council halls. The US government is supposed to be neutral when it comes to religion. It allows religious rituals in its buildings and institutions of any religious groups without distinction for creed or Church.

 

[Kenny]

That's TLTR.
What's the short version of "the lie"?

Perhaps it would more beneficial to show how it is being implemented:
School Can't Display Ten Commandments; SCHOOL CAN'T POST COMMANDMENTS (Published 1957)

Federal Judge: Police Officers Cannot Pray in Public

SCC rules municipal meeting cannot begin with a prayer

Manifestations of the lie.

 

[Kenny]

If there is no explicit article that states the separation of Church and State, this implies the possibility that there is no such a separation (if it demonstrated).


A constitutional principle is to be explicitly specified in the Constitution.

The first amendment does not say anything specific.

That was VERY well said!!!!!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps it would more beneficial to show how it is being implemented:
School Can't Display Ten Commandments; SCHOOL CAN'T POST COMMANDMENTS (Published 1957)

Federal Judge: Police Officers Cannot Pray in Public

SCC rules municipal meeting cannot begin with a prayer

Manifestations of the lie.

I don't see a "lie" in this.
Separation of church & state often involves
prohibiting government from supporting a
particular religion.

Back when I was in public elementary school,
teachers led students in Christian prayer.
This practice was later properly struck down
by SCOTUS.
As you can imagine, I refused to pray.

 

[Left Coast]

1. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
   
   
2. John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.
   
   
3. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
   
   
4. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
   
   
5. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
   
   
6. Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
   
   
7. William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.
   
   
8. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
   
   
9. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
   
   
10. Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73
    
    
11. Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
    
    
12. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
    
    
13. From the Library of Congress, at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

https://www.givehim15.com/post/january-25-2022

Jefferson letter of wall of separation was not about today's separation but a statement that there would not be a "single denomination forcing their denomination" as the King of England did.

• Two days later, after he wrote that letter, he attended church "IN THE CAPITOL" -- which would obviously destroy today's lie of separation of church and state.(1)
• Numerous presidents and members of Congress attended church services there - for decades! - including John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Lincoln and others. Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties - as a representative of the people - to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.”(2)
• The Rostrum of the House Speaker was used as the pulpit, and Congress purchased the hymnals! I realize you probably weren’t taught this in our public school system, which now propagandizes and revises history, but it is true.Actually, the Capitol was used for church services before ever being used by Congress. Approved December 4, 1800, by both the House and Senate, (3)
• services began before the entire Capitol was completed and Congress itself could move in. Jefferson, as Vice President at the time and therefore leader of the Senate, approved it on behalf of the Senate. He attended the services for years, throughout his time as Vice President and President, (4)
• had a designated seat, (5)
• and was so committed to it he even made the journey in inclement weather. (6)
• Services first began to be held in the north wing of the Capitol, moved to Statuary Hall as they grew in number, and eventually landed in the House Chamber. It was, in fact, the first official use of the Chamber on December 13, 1857, with as many as 2000 people in attendance! (7)
• Services were interdenominational, speakers were local pastors or the House and Senate Chaplains, (8)
• and included women (9)
• and blacks. (10)
• Some churches were actually allowed to use it as their meeting place until they procured other buildings. (11)
• And when needed, the Supreme Court Chamber, then in the Capitol building, was also used! (12,13)

Never was today's separation of church and state.

Turns out, the country is not now and has never been perfect or consistent in application of its values. The same people you're citing upheld the institution of slavery. Our values have matured.

 

[Windwalker]

Perhaps it would more beneficial to show how it is being implemented:
School Can't Display Ten Commandments; SCHOOL CAN'T POST COMMANDMENTS (Published 1957)

Let's be honest here. How would you feel if public schools were to post passages from the Koran? Or how about a wall devoted to Buddhist teachings? Wouldn't you view that as the government foisting religious views from another religion upon you, who did not identify as a Muslim, or a Buddhist?

Then, following the golden rule that Jesus taught about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, do you think it's fair to post Christian religious teachings on the walls of public schools for those who are not Christians, such as little Buddhist children, or atheist children? Where is fairness here? Wouldn't it be best to just exclude all of them? I don't know how that can be answered any other way.

Federal Judge: Police Officers Cannot Pray in Public

Again, asking you to be honest here, how would you feel if your local police force organized a prayer vigil, where they all pulled out their prayer mats, faced Mecca, and offered prayers to Allah?

Would you be okay with that? I fully suspect your answer would be no. Is it wrong for others to then not want government funded institutions, paid for with their own tax dollars, to set up Christian-based prayer vigils, when they are not part of that religion or believe in its views?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," means you have to put yourself in their shoes, and not just look at it from what you see as true only.

SCC rules municipal meeting cannot begin with a prayer

Again, how would you feel if those prayers were to Allah, or to the Buddha, or even to Lucifer if they were of that belief system?

It seems you are only offended if someone says they are uncomfortable with your religion, while you would in a heartbeat not accept it if it were from another religion that wasn't yours in that same situation, being funded by your tax dollars and representing that institutions values in a religious way.

Is that fair to atheists? Is that fair to Buddhists? Is that fair to Muslims? Is it only fair, when it's fair to Christians?

Manifestations of the lie.

I see it as the truth of fairness to all in a pluralist society. Do you wish to force Christianity down the throats of others using the powers of government institutions ? How does that honestly reflect Christian values, I ask?

 

[Kenny]

It's moot and no, buying hymnals or purchasing services from a Chruch isn't providing governmental support to said Church, especially since they were not purchased with the specific purpose of supporting a particular Church over the others. It's not giving legislative authority to the Church either. Using a public building as a congregation isn't having priests sitting and acting in the assembly itself. A building is just a building. The assembly is the political institution and yes, members of the assembly can be religious and have desire for religious services. What they cannot have is make their religion or particular religious view favored by the law nor give special legal authority to its priesthood.

Christianity isn't a Church, it's a religion composed of thousands of different Chruches. I would also like to note that other religions have given prayers in Congress, most famously Islam, and that secular introspection time were also conducted. Hell, if we go down in municipal level, even pastafarians have given prayers in city council halls. The US government is supposed to be neutral when it comes to religion. It allows religious rituals in its buildings and institutions of any religious groups without distinction for creed or Church.

• But they aren't neutral... are they.
• Buying hymnals is supporting Christianity
• Opening up the Capitol IS supporting Christianity.
• No.. it isn't suppose to be a Theocracy. But it wasn't suppose to limit Christianity as it does today.
• The law WAS influenced by the Christian faith.
• Christian Chaplaincy was started in 1790 - it wasn't an Islamic or multi-religious chaplain.

 

[Kenny]

Turns out, the country is not now and has never been perfect or consistent in application of its values. The same people you're citing upheld the institution of slavery. Our values have matured.

Strawman

 

[sun rise]

Again, how would you feel if those prayers were to Allah, or to the Buddha, or even to Lucifer if they were of that belief system?

Exactly. My religious rights as a non-Christian are upheld by the First Amendment. To limit certain rights to one religion are to deny them to all the other religions (and atheists).

And if you want to take an absolutist version of the First, then Mormons should be allowed plural marriages, animal sacrifice should be allowed, Muslims should be allowed to post signs that say that Jesus is not the Son of God and that he did not die on the cross and so forth.

If you want to argue that sometimes justice is imperfect and we should do a better job, there's some chance I might agree. But if you take a strict pro-Christian view of government, then I refer to India which is becoming ever more violent with Hindu attacks on members of other religions. Do we really want a religious civil war in the USA?

And since you @KenS , identify as "JudeoChristian", Jews don't believe Jesus was the awaited Messiah so they have to right to post signs to that effect and teach that in school etc.

 

[Kenny]

Again, asking you to be honest here, how would you feel if your local police force organized a prayer vigil, where they all pulled out their prayer mats, faced Mecca, and offered prayers to Allah?

Have no problem whatsoever.

Again, how would you feel if those prayers were to Allah, or to the Buddha, or even to Lucifer if they were of that belief system?

As a matter of fact, we had a non-religious person open up at our local municipality... have no problem whatsoever.

I see it as the truth of fairness to all in a pluralist society. Do you wish to force Christianity down the throats of others using the powers of government institutions ? How does that honestly reflect Christian values, I ask?

How is someone ramming anything down someones throat? Or are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Kenny]

Exactly. My religious rights as a non-Christian are upheld by the First Amendment. To limit certain rights to one religion are to deny them to all the other religions (and atheists).

And if you want to take an absolutist version of the First, then Mormons should be allowed plural marriages, animal sacrifice should be allowed, Muslims should be allowed to post signs that say that Jesus is not the Son of God and that he did not die on the cross and so forth.

If you want to argue that sometimes justice is imperfect and we should do a better job, there's some chance I might agree. But if you take a strict pro-Christian view of government, then I refer to India which is becoming ever more violent with Hindu attacks on members of other religions. Do we really want a religious civil war in the USA?

And since you @KenS , identify as "JudeoChristian", Jews don't believe Jesus was the awaited Messiah so they have to right to post signs to that effect and teach that in school etc.

I'm not sure how all of this applies to the current mis-interpretation of the wall of separation.

 

[Left Coast]

Strawman

How?

 

[Windwalker]

How is someone ramming anything down someones throat? Or are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

So you honestly would have no problem with your child attending a public school, where emblazoned upon the walls as they entered into it was an inscription of this chiseled in stone:

Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa
Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare
Hare Rāma Hare Rāma
Rāma Rāma Hare Hare​

And furthermore, the local government organized a Krishna consciousness chant for the local city? To go further, the city only used Krishna symbols and only Krishna and the Hindu gods were invoked, excluding any reference to Jesus or Christianity?

I doubt what you are saying here. I was embedded within fundamentalist, conservative evangelical Christianity, and I know for a fact how they would react to such things. They would be up in arms in a second! They would view that as the government imposing Hinduism upon their children!

But none of them would ever once stop to realize their own double standard when it came to their own views in school. How is the Ten Commandments, not imposing religious views upon Atheist children in schools, any more than having the Krishna Mantra on the walls would be imposing Hinduism upon Christian children? There is no difference at all.

Seriously, isn't neutrality better? How is that evil in your eyes? I just don't see it.

 

[tytlyf]

America was founded as a secular country. Governed by a secular constitution. You're not going to change that.

 

[Yazata]

Jefferson letter of wall of separation was not about today's separation but a statement that there would not be a "single denomination forcing their denomination" as the King of England did.

I agree that was the original intention. But as America's view of the world broadened, it became obvious that the original non-denominational Protestantism that was de facto established as normative in the early Republic was too narrow. It wasn't until 1827 that a Roman Catholic was allowed to lead prayers in the Capitol building. To my knowledge, there has never to this day been a House or Senate chaplain from a non-Christian religion.

Never was today's separation of church and state.

I think that Thomas Jefferson's views on church and state might be best be expressed in paragraph II of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom of 1786, which Jefferson wrote:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

If we take that seriously, which I most emphatically do, then public schools teaching Christianity would seem to be a violation as long as they are funded by mandatory tax dollars and truancy laws continue.

I do agree that the idea has probably been taken too far when voluntary student religious clubs aren't allowed to meet after school hours on school property when attendance isn't mandatory. (Voluntary attendance is the justification for the House and Senate chaplains after all. Representatives and Senators aren't required to attend the prayers.)

Religious quotations placed in courtrooms or similar places looks to me like a doglike Christian attempt to treat the building like a fire hydrant and mark it as their territory. Which in effect would make it mandatory for those of us who aren't Christians to frequent an explicitly Christian religious place very intentionally marked as not ours in order to obtain legal justice.

So what is it that we want? Establishment of Christianity, however generic and non-denominational it might be, as America's state religion? If that's the goal here, then sadly I will have to hold my nose and line up alongside the atheists in opposition to it.