John Cleese weighs in on the woke folk

@lemon-lime said
The pointy-headed clever by half no1Marauder disingenuously pretends I am only referring to 18th century atheists.

I was obviously talking about 20th and 21st century atheists, who have taken the phrase "separation of church and state" to mean something Thomas Jefferson (a deist) did not say. In his defense no1Marauder will undoubtedly insist he is being accurate and ha ...[text shortened]... hat the misrepresented and underrepresented second classy citizens have had to endure for 300 years.

Well here's what the man said:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

"thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" seems kinda clear, does it not?

I assume the last paragraph is a parody of one of our other esteemed posters' typical style.

@no1marauder said
Well here's what the man said:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, [b]I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legis ...[text shortened]... not?

I assume the last paragraph is a parody of one of our other esteemed posters' typical style.

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
No state mandated church, e.g. the Church of England.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
i.e. keep your grubby little hands off my religion.

"thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Again, keep your grubby little governmental hands to yourselves. It's not the governments job to "establish" my religion and exercise control over it

"seems kinda clear, does it not?"
What does it clearly mean to you? To me it clearly means the colonists had their fill of government control over religion, and wanted to be free to worship in their own houses of prayer.


"I assume the last paragraph is a parody of one of our other esteemed posters' typical style."

No1Marauder assumes I have indulged myself in parody, no doubt because he cannot refute my illustrious illustrations of measured reasoning against the pathetic palliative bromides he presumptuously presents.

@lemon-lime said
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
No state mandated church, e.g. the Church of England.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
i.e. keep your grubby little hands off my religion.

"thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Again, keep your grubby little governmental hands to yourselves. It's not the government ...[text shortened]... lustrations of measured reasoning against the pathetic palliative bromides he presumptuous presents.

Nor is it the government's job to incorporate religious tenets into the penal and other laws regulating the People's behavior.

To do so would be establishing a religion as well (note that the Framers didn't say "establish a Church" ).

@no1marauder said
Nor is it the government's job to incorporate religious tenets into the penal and other laws regulating the People's behavior.

Where do you think our laws originated?


natures law of tooth and nail?

@no1marauder said
Nor is it the government's job to incorporate religious tenets into the penal and other laws regulating the People's behavior.

To do so would be establishing a religion as well (note that the Framers didn't say "establish a Church" ).

note that the Framers didn't say "establish a Church"

There are a lot of things the Framers didn't say, because they didn't waste their energies indulging themselves in useless semantics.

@lemon-lime said

note that the Framers didn't say "establish a Church"

There are a lot of things the Framers didn't say, because they didn't waste their energies indulging themselves in useless semantics.

If they had meant the phrase to do the limited job you suggest, they could have and would have used the term "establish a Church". They also wouldn't have used the expansive "no law respecting" language.

It's an established principle of Constitutional interpretation that no wording in the document is meaningless. Your characterization would radically limit the meaning of the clause in contrast to the wording of the Framers.

@lemon-lime said

The separation of Church and State is clearly defined in the civic body of the US.

Yeah, except you won't find the phrase "separation of Church and State" in there. It's a phrase atheists are fond of using in their quest to restrict religious freedom.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting ...[text shortened]... he people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So just opinions from you then.
A state established religion is a state religion though isn’t it, and it’s clearly prohibited by the constitution.
The framers were emerging from an environment of church and state, (or rather monarch) justifying each others power over the people. ‘Rule by divine right’ in its most extreme form. That’s what the framers were guarding against and if you look at who supported trump in office it seems that they’ve left some loopholes.

@kevcvs57 said
So just opinions from you then.
A state established religion is a state religion though isn’t it, and it’s clearly prohibited by the constitution.
The framers were emerging from an environment of church and state, (or rather monarch) justifying each others power over the people. ‘Rule by divine right’ in its most extreme form. That’s what the framers were guarding against and if you look at who supported trump in office it seems that they’ve left some loopholes.

Yes, they were guarding against the newly formed republic devolving back into a monarchy, or from becoming any form of dictatorship. The founders had the foresight to protect their new republic from becoming like Russia or North Korea or Iran or Cuba or Venezuela or... the list goes on and on.

if you look at who supported trump in office it seems that they’ve left some loopholes.

And if you look at who supported Biden we could soon have a president who has been compromised because of his money making ventures with China and other bad actors.

@lemon-lime said
Yes, they were guarding against the newly formed republic devolving back into a monarchy, or from becoming any form of dictatorship. The founders had the foresight to protect their new republic from becoming like Russia or North Korea or Iran or Cuba or Venezuela or... the list goes on and on.

[quote]if you look at who supported trump in office it seems that they’ve lef ...[text shortened]... ident who has been compromised because of his money making ventures with China and other bad actors.

Like we didn't have that with Trump. We still don't know how much he gave up to Putin and Co. He never gave a fat rat's ass for America, only how fat he can make his wallet.

@no1marauder said
If they had meant the phrase to do the limited job you suggest, they could have and would have used the term "establish a Church". They also wouldn't have used the expansive "no law respecting" language.

It's an established principle of Constitutional interpretation that no wording in the document is meaningless. Your characterization would radically limit the meaning of the clause in contrast to the wording of the Framers.

It was written hundreds of years agonby people who believed in gods, had slaves and weren’t properly educated.

Please. Stop referring to your constitution as something biblical.
It’s a document (based on the Dutch version) that’s outdated and is in severe need of an upgrade.

@Suzianne - Like we didn't have that with Trump. We still don't know how much he gave up to Putin and Co.....

Right. Likely because it is ZERO.

How much did Hilary give up to Putin??? Ahhhhhhh..... that's different, eh?
Try 20% of America's Uranium reserves. And the Cool Hilary was rewarded with a
kiss of $140 million from her lover, Vlad.

What's that Suzie..,? you don't want to talk about it????

GEEEEEEE, I wonder why