[jlisenbe]

As I said, I didn't mention it, "it" being the Constitution. YOU are the one who tossed it into the accusation.

OK. Then, to be specific, why did you mention "separation of church and state"? It is not a principle of law and not found in the Constitution, so I don't see any relevance.

There was no accusation. It was a simple question. It still is.

[Wondergirl]

OK. Then, to be specific, why did you mention "separation of church and state"? It is not a principle of law and not found in the Constitution, so I don't see any relevance.

There was no accusation. It was a simple question. It still is.

Churches and religious schools, charities, etc. are tax exempt. Why?

[jlisenbe]

Churches and religious schools, charities, etc. are tax exempt. Why?

As far as I know it's the same reason that the United Way is tax exempt. Charitable organizations.

But I still don't know why you brought up separation of church and state.

[Athos]

As far as I know it's the same reason that the United Way is tax exempt. Charitable organizations.

Wrong. Churches and religious schools are tax exempt because they are religious organizations.

But I still don't know why you brought up separation of church and state.

Wrong again. Separation of church and state is simply Jefferson's way of rephrasing the First Amendment which is part of the Constitution.

[jlisenbe]

Wrong again. Separation of church and state is simply Jefferson's way of rephrasing the First Amendment which is part of the Constitution.

OK. I couldn't be "wrong" since I did not assert anything. I asked a question. It is a simple concept.

As far as the tax exempt question is concerned, I pretty clearly said "as far as I know", so I wasn't trying to make a hard and fast statement.

And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.

[Wondergirl]

And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.

The US is not a Christian nation. "The First Amendment was specifically designed to prohibit established churches, and at the Constitutional Convention attempts to write in some sort of nominal support for Christianity always failed."
https://www.learnreligions.com/is-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-248215

[jlisenbe]

But as I have posted before, the 10 Commandments are not solely Christian. Jews and Moslems claim that text as well. And if I was an atheist, I would still be all in for posting them. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Even the commandments about the worship of God tell us to put something above ourselves. It makes for a much more ordered and peaceful society if we honor them. In fact, I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose putting such basic moral values on schoolhouse walls. It is NOT an establishment of a national religion anymore than having "In God we trust" on our coins or as our national motto.

[Wondergirl]

But as I have posted before, the 10 Commandments are not solely Christian. Jews and Moslems claim that text as well. And if I was an atheist, I would still be all in for posting them. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Even the commandments about the worship of God tell us to put something above ourselves. It makes for a much more ordered and peaceful society if we honor them. In fact, I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose putting such basic moral values on schoolhouse walls. It is NOT an establishment of a national religion anymore than having "In God we trust" on our coins or as our national motto.

But posting the Ten Commandments won't be the end of it. Then the demand will be for schoolteachers to spend class time talking with students about the Commandments ... and the Bible ... and Jesus. Reminds me of gun owners who say that "won't be the end of it" if assault weapons are confiscated.

[Athos]

And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.

Everybody - but you apparently - knows perfectly well what separation of church and state means. Totally proper to bring up in this conversation.

Also, after the Ten Commandments, do we post in the classroom the 8 precepts of Buddhism, its 4 Noble Paths, the I Ching of Tao, and whatever holy sayings the Hindus and the Shintoists and the Bahai crowd have? Then there's the Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.

Or did you think the only religions were Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

[talaniman]

Do you propose a federal law mandating it? Or a federal law giving local school districts that authority to allow it? Or a SCOTUS ruling to overturn the 1962 Scotus ruling against public school prayer, or any other religious instruction that's not in an educational context? The individual is however, as WG stated, allowed to pray silently to themselves in a non disruptive way.

[jlisenbe]

But posting the Ten Commandments won't be the end of it. Then the demand will be for schoolteachers to spend class time talking with students about the Commandments ... and the Bible ... and Jesus. Reminds me of gun owners who say that "won't be the end of it" if assault weapons are confiscated.

That's the "slippery slope" argument. It can be used endlessly. "I won't agree with doing away with assault weapons because I know you are really after handguns as well." But there is no real reason for believing what you describe above will happen.

Everybody - but you apparently - knows perfectly well what separation of church and state means. Totally proper to bring up in this conversation.

I know exactly what it means. Unlike you, I also know separation of church/state is not formal law.

Also, after the Ten Commandments, do we post in the classroom the 8 precepts of Buddhism, its 4 Noble Paths, the I Ching of Tao, and whatever holy sayings the Hindus and the Shintoists and the Bahai crowd have? Then there's the Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.

Or did you think the only religions were Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

I know there are other religions, but no, I don't think their precepts should be displayed. The Ten Commandments are the historical moral precepts of this country and have been accepted as so for the past two hundred years or more. Do you see the 8 precepts of Buddhism posted at the entrance to the Supreme Court chambers?

Do you propose a federal law mandating it? Or a federal law giving local school districts that authority to allow it? Or a SCOTUS ruling to overturn the 1962 Scotus ruling against public school prayer, or any other religious instruction that's not in an educational context? The individual is however, as WG stated, allowed to pray silently to themselves in a non disruptive way.

I have not called for prayer. As for the Ten Commandments, it would take a Supreme Court ruling as far as I know. I would suggest it be left up to the individual states. I don't see it happening. My main point is that since SCOTUS decided that having the Ten Commandments displayed, which had been done for 150 years, was suddenly a violation of the Constitution, we have lost our moorings as a country. We did not have this large number of mass shootings in the fifties and sixties. You want to restrict gun ownership. I want to establish some public morals.

[talaniman]

Maybe we should start by electing moral leaders that keep your Judeo Christian 10 commandments. Obviously we fall short in that regard.

I know there are other religions, but no, I don't think their precepts should be displayed. The Ten Commandments are the historical moral precepts of this country and have been accepted as so for the past two hundred years or more. Do you see the 8 precepts of Buddhism posted at the entrance to the Supreme Court chambers?

That is emblematic of your whole problem. There is no room in your acceptance for any one except YOU. I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings. Maybe we didn't have as many mass shootings in the 50's and sixties, but there was plenty of riots lynching's protests school and church bombings assassinations and injustice and abject cruelty by so called moral people against the deemed others going back to when Euros first came to these lands.

Our history is not a great example of practicing the morals you preach. Maybe the chickens are coming home to roost as we try to form a better union.

[jlisenbe]

I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings.

That is an incredible statement. The killing of a dozen innocent human beings is not a moral issue??? Wow. I can only assume you have not had your coffee yet.

That is emblematic of your whole problem. There is no room in your acceptance for any one except YOU.

Well, me and the more than 300 million other Americans whose religious heritage would include Christian, Jewish, or Moslem beliefs, and not to mention the more than 200 years of history which has been dominated by Biblical beliefs going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. So yeah, it's a little more than just me.

[talaniman]

You can deny your own failings all you want, but don't try to make me believe in your perfection when clearly it is your domination you are exploiting and to be frank always have been. Now you can wrap that into morality all you want but history is a clear indication that your domination over others is not just flawed, but has consequences as well. Of course you wish for those days back when you could be so cruel in the name of your God that entitled you, but that's changing so maybe instead of continuing down the path of entitled domination you learn to share with the former ones you dominated with your flawed, cruel, hypocritical DOMINATION.

I doubt 300 million people agree with your assessment, and while it's still your majority, I think good people of your own race reject your claim of entitled majority domination and really do want liberty and justice for all men being equal. Embrace the equality my friend and be better for it and a peaceful outcome. This is the way you can build your moral credibility, which your cruelty greatly overshadows.

[tomder55]

There is no 'separation of church and state ' Jefferson wasn't even in the country and was certainly no framer of the constitution . He was not involved in the debates about the amendments so his fanciful description of there being a separation is his own perception . The religious part of the constitution is 2 part . There is no state religion and people are free to exercise their faith. The first amendment is about protecting this right to believe and the government’s inability to tell us what to believe. Even those who don’t believe in God are protected.

Ninety five percent of the original signers of the Constitution were Christian. Their goal wasn’t to tell us how to believe, but to protect our right to decide for ourselves without government interference. To use it as an excuse to exclude religion in the public square is a gross misreading of the intent.

[paraclete]

I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings.

An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply

The shootings are a moral issue, particularly in a society that thinks gun ownership is more important than human life

[talaniman]

To use your religion as an excuse to dominate and control others is also I feel a gross misreading of intent. That started with the all men are equal EXCEPT reality of the founding of our nation and seems to be prevalent now. Not overtly as chains and whips, but certainly ingrained in practice, and we have many examples over the years, decades and centuries.

[talaniman]

An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply

The shootings are a moral issue, particularly in a society that thinks gun ownership is more important than human life

The world still is a jungle Clete, despite the technical advances and fancy trappings of so called civility. We are a long way from the meek inheriting the Earth, and there are plenty of predators still lurking about. Many of some or other religion professing a God that entitles them to convert the heathens which translates to everybody else, but the true believer.

[paraclete]

The world still is a jungle Clete, despite the technical advances and fancy trappings of so called civility. We are a long way from the meek inheriting the Earth, and there are plenty of predators still lurking about. Many of some or other religion professing a God that entitles them to convert the heathens which translates to everybody else, but the true believer.

Spare me the B/S Tal, you have the option of saying No! unless you live in a Muslim country. the question isn't what you believe as much as it is whether you force others to agree with you. I think you are a true believer in the 21st century religion of AGW

[jlisenbe]

I doubt 300 million people agree with your assessment, and while it's still your majority, I think good people of your own race reject your claim of entitled majority domination and really do want liberty and justice for all men being equal. Embrace the equality my friend and be better for it and a peaceful outcome. This is the way you can build your moral credibility, which your cruelty greatly overshadows.

Entitled majority domination? Get some coffee quick!! You're not making sense.

You can deny your own failings all you want, but don't try to make me believe in your perfection when clearly it is your domination you are exploiting and to be frank always have been. Now you can wrap that into morality all you want but history is a clear indication that your domination over others is not just flawed, but has consequences as well.

I have denied my own failings? When have I done that? My perfection? My domination? What world did you wake up in this morning? You consider mass murders to be just a failing of humanity. I consider it to be a moral issue. People will have to decide for themselves, but I hope we don't post your "Law of the Jungle" on our schoolhouse walls.

An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply.

Well said, especially the part about the moral compass. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth on this board about the situation on the southern border. Should we consider that to be simply a failing of humanity, or is it a moral issue that should be addressed? And if we address it, would that be an example of domination by an entitled majority?