Is modern separation of church and state based on circular logic?
I have asked repeately for anybody to show me anything written by any founder of our nation that SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY declares that religious symbols like the Crucifix and the Ten Commandments must be banished from public buildings and public lands.
The responsers who are respectful enough to refrain from personal attacks will only recite Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists or the First Amendment itself, neither of which explicitly say anything about abolishing religious symbols from public buildings or public land.
But they say OBVIOUSLY this is implied by the statement that the government must not interfere with any person's religious expression.
Hello - if religious symbols are banished from public buildings, isn't this interfering????
There is nothing "OBVIOUS" about this interpretation. In fact, this interpretation is the exact opposite of the actual written words.
But people seem to be so brainwashed that they don't realize they're just employing circular logic.
They say it says that just because everybody thinks it says that.
Even though it doesn't.
Bolshevik, circular logic might lead to some form of Marxism.
and seeing how many Marxists got killed by other Marxists during the violent beginning of Stalinism, that would not be good.
david, is there ANY documented original intent that supports your use of the word "establishment?"
How does giving space in a public building amount to "establishment?"
Does permitting a church announcement on a bulletin board establish a state church?
Isn't that a little paranoid?
- SammyCalLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Modern separation of church and state is based on a string of bad Supreme Court rulings starting with McCollum v. Board of Education, running through Epperson and ending up at Lee v. Weisman.
Those rulings are clear violations of Constitution with the federal government trampling all over states rights.
- 1 decade ago
If only Christian things are displayed in the public building - it would appear the government is endorsing Christianity. That would run counter to the establishing a religion thing. If there are other symbols, along with the Christian symbols, then the display is acceptable.
There is nothing that specifically or explicitly declares that the Crucifix and the Ten Commandments must be banished, but if they are the only religious items displayed, then it would appear the government is endorsing a religion.
People should just keep their religion to themselves and keep it out of public buildings. I don't care if is it Christianity or Scientology or Hindu or Muslim. They should keep it to themselves. We don't need religious displays in public buildings anyway.
- Noah HLv 71 decade ago
To place ANYTHING in or on a federal building requires some person, speaking for the government to approve of that placement. To make any changes to a federal facility those changes must be approved by Congress under an existing law and by someone authorized by congress to facilitate those changes. The 1st Amendment clearly states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion'. Congressional approval of symbols of religion violates that amendment as it suggests that congress, therefore the United States government supports the religion that those symbols represent, thereby 'establishing' that religion as having the full approval of the government.
- davidmi711Lv 71 decade ago
"Hello - if religious symbols are banished from public buildings, isn't this interfering????" - No. Government buildings are owned by everyone. That does not in any way prohibit a person from expressing their views on their own property. They are not allowed to setup displays on my property.
The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The court has time and time again determined that using public money or space establishes that the religion using that money or space has value. The government has no authority to do so.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
In the constitution it says the government shall not promote the establishment of religion. We can't tax religion, and we can't promote religion.
If I want to see the 10 commandments I can go to church. We already have LAWS that say killing is illegal, stealing is illegal, adultery is illegal, so overall their presence in public buildings is pointless. Why not just have individual state laws in public buildings? Because after all, no where in the bible does it say anything about rape and pedophilia.Source(s): If the government openly promotes organized religion, or Christianity next thing we will hear people demanding is Jewish and Islamic promotion in public buildings. You simply can't have 1 with out all the rest.
- Think 1stLv 71 decade ago
Nope, it is based on practicality.
There is no EXPLICIT, writing on this subject from any of the all to human and therefore fallible founders.
So put back The Ten Commandments statue in Montgomery if you wish as our Gubernatorial candidate Judge Roy Moore wishes to do again.
Just make room for any other religious statue that somebody wanes to put next to it.
Pentagram anyone?Source(s): Alabama.
- El TecoloteLv 71 decade ago
There was a courthouse somewhere in Alabama that had the 10 Commandments etched into a wall. It caused a sudden public stir one day, so the county sold the building to a private firm, which leased it back to the county. Now that it's on private land, the public can't say or do sh!t about it.
Maybe the rest of the country should take a page from that manual.
- 1 decade ago
The point was that the state shouldn't sponsor a religion or force people to worship. Thats all.
- Wounded DuckLv 71 decade ago
To promote ANY religion, at the expense of others, is the basis of this logic. Nothing circular about it.
- CRFILv 61 decade ago
What´s bad with circular logics?