For our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE---SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE has largely been tied to CHRISTIAN religions ---PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC----and JEWISH religions. This policy is OLD WORLD-----for several centuries in Western Europe as in the US our CIVIC GOVERNMENT was required to keep RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE out of PUBLIC SPACE. This policy is what allowed the US these 300 years to have thriving religious cultures while allowing people the freedom to NOT BELIEVE IN RELIGION---GOD.
WE ABSOLUTELY WANT TO MAINTAIN THIS POLICY OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Today, this would be expanded to include not only CHURCH---but SYNAGOGUE------MUSLIM AND HINDI TEMPLE.
I will add to my DEPOSITION an event from yesterday as an example of the attack of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE on a MARYLAND PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS.
A local homeless man begging in our neighborhood came on bus and sat next to me. I heard through FEEDBACK this man was told to create an action. That action was-----RECITING VEDIC PASSAGES very LOUDLY. He was told to do that. Those on the PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE KNOW I am against religious recitation on public transit-----I have in the past shown displeasure when someone reciting BIBLICAL text stands and shouts for as long as they on the bus-----the problem is not WHICH RELIGION someone is RECITING ---the problem is that it is being done on a PUBLIC BUS-----SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE tries to restrain these incidences.
The difference between someone standing on a public street corner or on a plaza with mega-phone shouting RELIGIOUS TEXTS is this: people in public spaces can choose to walk away------if they are bothered by that shouting----whether they be ATHEIST----or not of that religion---they can escape the shouting and feel free to not listen.
When someone does the same inside a bus, subway, light rail people cannot escape these spaces---ergo, these shouting should not be allowed. If someone wants to quietly recite a PRAYER as they sit----that's not a problem----it is when people are allowed to LIFT THEIR VOICE so there is no escaping it--that it becomes as problem.
I acted to change the conversation away from religious texts by engaging this man in common conversation. When I was preparing to get off the bus----I asked his status on finding a HOME as he was HOMELESS---and among his response was
THANK YOU FOR INTERRUPTING MY RECITATION OF VEDICS-----
I said ---YOU ARE WELCOME.
Indian Arts and Culture Hinduism
What You Need to Know About the Vedas--India's Most Sacred Texts
A Brief Introduction
Immediately, the public surveillance structure on the bus says-------GET OFF ---GET OFF-----SHE TRIES TO CONTROL EVERYTHING------then another voice on PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE says----GET HER.
Everyone this bus is hearing this-----this is INCITEMENT TOWARDS VIOLENCE ON A PUBLIC BUS.
I am 99.9 % sure those voices on PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE are NOT RELIGIOUS------so, this was never about being offended by religious stance.
Just to remind our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE who often are either CHRISTIAN/JEWISH/ATHEIST NON-BELIEVER-----what HINDI RELIGIOUS TEXT entails. We will note that VEDICS are 1000BC-----developing from ancient Hindi religion dating 3000BC----this is why we use the phrase------
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA AND ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE IS TAKING US TO ONE RELIGION THAT BEING 3000BC -----HINDI----BRAHMIN.
'The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts. The Samhitas date to roughly 1700–1100 BCE, and the "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000–500 BCE, resulting in a Vedic period, spanning the mid 2nd to mid 1st millennium BCE, or the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. The Vedic period reaches its peak only after the composition of the mantra texts, with the establishment of the various shakhas all over Northern India which annotated the mantra samhitas with Brahmana discussions of their meaning, and reaches its end in the age of Buddha and Panini and the rise of the Mahajanapadas (archaeologically, Northern Black Polished Ware). Michael Witzel gives a time span of c. 1500 to c. 500–400 BCE. Witzel makes special reference to the Near Eastern Mitanni material of the 14th century BCE, the only epigraphic record of Indo-Aryan contemporary to the Rigvedic period. He gives 150 BCE (Patañjali) as a terminus ante quem for all Vedic Sanskrit literature, and 1200 BCE (the early Iron Age) as terminus post quem for the Atharvaveda'.
In third world nations never having SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE----people standing up in buses et al reciting religious texts often are met with violence from someone not liking it. It promotes VIOLENCE.
This is what we call global banking 5% freemason/Greek civil unrest civil war PLAYER-----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA deliberately CORRUPTED this US stance by sending FEDERAL funding to any NGO calling itself RELIGIOUS------of course most of that funding made its way to global corporations tied to FREEMASONRY
Other Religions Atheism and Agnosticism
The Separation of Church and State
Misunderstood and Maligned
by Austin Cline
Updated May 23, 2019
What is the separation of church and state?
That is a very good question — the and state is perhaps one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and maligned concepts in American political, legal and religious debates today. Everyone has an opinion, but unfortunately, many of those opinions are woefully misinformed.
The separation of church and state is not only misunderstood, it is also exceedingly important. That is probably one of the few points on which everyone on all sides of the debate can readily agree upon — their reasons for agreeing may differ, but they do concur that the separation of church and state is one of the key constitutional principles in American history.
What Are "Church" and "State"?
Understanding the separation of church and state is complicated by the fact that we are using such a simplified phrase. There is, after all, no single “church.” There are many religious organizations in the United States taking different names — church, synagogue, temple, Kingdom Hall and more. There are also many corporate bodies that do not adopt such religious titles, but which are nevertheless controlled by religious organizations — for example, Catholic hospitals.
Also, there is no single “state.” Instead, there are multiple levels of government at the federal, state, regional and local levels. There are also a great variety of government organizations — commissions, departments, agencies and more. These can all have different levels of involvement and different relationships with different types of religious organizations.
This is important because it underscores the fact that, in the “separation of church and state,” we cannot be talking about a single, literal church and a single, literal state. Those terms are metaphors, meant to point to something larger. The “church” should be construed as any organized religious body with its doctrines/dogmas, and the “state” should be construed as any governmental body, any government-run organization, or any government-sponsored event.
Civil vs. Religious Authority
Thus, a more accurate phrase than “separation of church and state” might be something like “separation of organized religion and civil authority,” because religious and civil authority over people's lives is not and should not be invested in the same people or organizations. In practice, this means that civil authority cannot dictate to or control organized religious bodies. The state cannot tell religious bodies what to preach, how to preach or when to preach. The Civil authority must exercise a “hands-off” approach, by not helping or hindering religion.
Separation of church and state is a two-way street, though. It isn’t just about restricting what the government can do with religion, but also what religious bodies can do with the government. Religious groups cannot dictate to or control the government. They cannot cause the government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, they cannot cause the government to restrict other groups, etc.
The biggest threat to religious freedom is not the government — or at least, not the government acting alone. We very rarely have a situation where secular government officials act to repress any particular religion or religion in general. More common are private religious organizations acting through the government by having their own doctrines and beliefs codified into law or policy.
Protecting the People
Thus, the separation of church and state ensures that private citizens, when acting in the role of some government official, cannot have any aspect of their private religious beliefs imposed upon others. School teachers cannot promote their religion to other people’s children, for example by deciding what sort of Bible will be read in class. Local officials cannot require certain religious practices on the part of government employees, for example by hosting specific, approved prayers. Government leaders cannot make members of other religions feel like they are unwanted or are second-class citizens by using their position to promote particular religious doctrines.
This requires moral self-restraint on government officials, and even to a degree on private citizens — a self-restraint which is necessary for a religiously pluralistic society to survive without descending into religious civil war. It ensures that the government remains the government of all citizens, not the government of one denomination or one religious tradition. It ensures that political divisions not be drawn along religious lines, with Protestants battling Catholics or Christians battling Muslims for “their share” of the public purse.
The separation of church and state is a key constitutional liberty which protects the American public from tyranny. It protects all people from the religious tyranny of any one religious group or tradition and it protects all people from a government intent on tyrannizing some or any religious groups.
This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics, C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The New Atheism and Separation of church and state'
'The ACLU has been branded un-American, anti-Christian, and atheistic. And when Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State speaks, people question his faith and condemn him for "siding with the atheists." '
We want to make more point on today's topic-----the group loving this MOVING FORWARD killing of all WESTERN RELIGIONS----are THE HUMANIST ATHEISTS. They see religion as TYRANNY-----but this last century as seen FEDERAL COURT PRECEDENCE which included ATHEISM in this RELIGIOUS FREEDOM----the RIGHT TO NOT BELIEVE.
What is MOVING FORWARD ----as ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION----3000BC HINDI-BRAHMIN under what will be DEEP DEEP REALLY DEEP STATE totalitarianism will not allow people to choose NOT TO BELIEVE. If global 1% install a SECOND CREATION MYTH-----which we feel very likely will look like HINDI religious texts-----then our US 99% WE THE ATHEISTS will again be trapped into having TO BELIEVE.
Now, in OLD WORLD WESTERN EUROPE the CATHOLIC CHURCH was THE STATE------and people living in ROMAN EMPIRE were often FORCED to convert---there was no room for NON-BELIEVERS.
Since MOVING FORWARD kills CATHOLIC RELIGION as well as PROTESTANT----JEWISH---MUSLIM -----our US 99% of citizens will be FORCED into these ANCIENT EASTERN HINDI religious structures
Here we have REAL 99% OF WE THE ATHEISTS----saying the same thing we are----as REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES.
On Separation of Church and State
(2006--A speech given at some kind of symposium on something...I remember that the ACLU guy said during a panel discussion that 'all-inclusive' prayers were okay before government meetings and I wanted to explain that there was no such thing. Once someone starts beseeching a deity of any kind, you've excluded the atheists. But I didn't say anything. Sometimes you're just tired, you know? Anyway, this speech isn't snarked. It doesn't need any snark.)
On April 7 of this year, in an opinion column in The Tallahassee Democrat on Americans’ lack of knowledge of the First Amendment, Bill Berlow said: "I'm eager for all Americans to know more about our history and our liberties. But I'm desperate for more of us to demand that they be protected when they're under fire - as they are today. Even if we're fairly well informed about our rights, the most important part of our constitutional compact is our willingness to hold them."
The American Mosaic Project, a study conducted by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology, discovered that atheists are America’s most distrusted minority. According to the majority of people surveyed, it was not people of other faiths or homosexuals, but atheists who are the last people they felt shared their vision of America, and the last people they’d want their kids to marry.
I’m no sociologist, but I can think of several reasons why atheists are the last acceptable prejudice in this country. One of the reasons is separation of church and state.
The majority in this country is Christian. And for most of them, there is little harm in allowing a bit of their god and their religion into government. As a favored majority, despite a troubling persecution complex, they haven’t enough true experience with oppression to imagine the ills of opening the door just a crack to let in the Christian God. Perhaps they imagine they’ll be able to stop it from going too far, or in a direction with which they don’t agree; but more likely they haven’t thought that far ahead. They haven’t really experienced enough hate and denigration to see what’s coming.
But I have. While it isn’t exactly true, it seems that it is always a few brave atheists who are willing to stand up and fight for complete and strict separation of religion and government. It seems that only the Newdows and the Johnsons and the Gaylors are willing to vocalize the danger and injustice of letting God into government.
The ACLU has been branded un-American, anti-Christian, and atheistic. And when Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State speaks, people question his faith and condemn him for "siding with the atheists."
Somehow, separating religion and government has been turned into endorsing atheism and banishing God from the public square. Somehow, the very ideal that is responsible for the flourishing of Christianity in this country has been deemed the enemy of the Christian faith. Attempts to secure the secular government promised in our Constitution are now being attacked as a war on Christianity.
In January, the Space Coast Progressive Alliance honored the Musgrove and Narciso families for their courage in fighting against holding public school graduations in a local mega-church. Along with feelings of pride and gratitude at being so honored, I had feelings of sadness and loss. Why does it take courage to stand up for religious liberty? Was it because we were a Buddhist and an atheist? Or was it because it was only a Buddhist and an atheist who stood up?
It’s true that a lot of people felt that holding graduation in a church didn’t hurt anybody so they didn’t see the case as one of religious liberty. From that we can reason that a majority of Americans do not understand religious liberty and have trouble empathizing with a minority faith viewpoint.
If atheists are the most distrusted minority in this country then we are the last people you want standing up alone and fighting for your religious freedom. It’s time the majority in this country woke up to the dangers of mixing religion and government and stood with us.
Atheists have three major groups in this country devoted to fighting for separation of church and state, one of which has a lobbyist in Congress. Atheists have hundreds of local groups fighting for their rights of conscience.
The religious have one group: Americans United for Separation of Church and State run by Reverend Barry Lynn of United Church of Christ. The problem with AU is that it isn’t just for the religious; its membership includes people of many faiths and those of no faith. That makes it an easy target.
Bill O’Reilly called Barry Lynn a "paranoid crazy."
Jerry Falwell called him "about as reverend as an oak tree."
Ann Coulter calls Lynn a "mail-order minister." [*citation link no longer valid]
Barry Lynn and the religious membership of Americans United are fighting an uphill battle because the majority in this country do not understand religious freedom. If you do not understand why graduating public school students in a church, on an altar, in front of an enormous cross, is a violation of freedom of conscience, then you do not understand religious liberty. If you do not understand why posting "God bless America" on the City of Palm Bay’s website, along with a picture of the American flag with a cross lit up within it, is a violation of separation of church and state, then you do not understand separation of church and state. If you can not understand why it a violation of my rights to include the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, to replace our motto, E Pluribus Unum, with "In God we Trust" and put it on our currency, and to post the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments on government property for any reason, then you do not understand your own rights.
Until you can look at the world from a minority viewpoint and imagine your government supporting, encouraging, and acknowledging a god or religion other than your own, you will never experience the empathy required to grasp the idea of religious freedom.
It’s just too easy, when you are one of the majority, to turn away from the rights of conscience of those with whom you do not agree, and swell with righteous satisfaction when patriotism and your religion walk hand in hand. Just remember, by the time it is your viewpoint that is deemed inconsequential, the atheists may not be here to help you.