Where is my $1000?

[winmutt]

To: sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us
Subject: Separation of Church and State,

Dear Mr. Bradley,

According to the article in the NY Times
"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html" you were
quoted as saying :

"I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of
church and state," said David Bradley
<http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3418>, a conservative from
Beaumont who works in real estate. "I have $1,000 for the charity of
your choice if you can find it in the Constitution."

I would like to point you to the wording of the First Amendment :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I would also point you to the definition of "separate" found in most
common dictionaries :

sep·a·rate [v. sep-uh-reyt; adj., n. sep-er-it]
--verb (used with object)
1. to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier or space: to
separate two fields by a fence.

If we can agree that the term "state", when it comes to making and
passing law, is represented by the United States Congress; that "church"
is a generic term for religion; and that "separate" means that one body
cannot interact with another, the wording of the statement "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " clearly indicates a separation
of the state being able to control and establish a Church.

While this may not be your inferred misconception of the words
separation, church and state; there is a separation clearly defined in
the US Constitution. As a publicly elected official and Texan I expect
you to be a man of your word, does the charity have to be located within
the state of Texas or do I have the ability to pick anyone singular one
anywhere in the world?

Sincerely,

Winmutt

[winmutt]

Anyone want to guess what my charity is?

[Butthead]

potheads of america? aclu? hippies r us? benzo owners that smell like refried beans? butthead's fan club?

[impalanar]

anyone want to guess what my charity is?

norml

[winmutt]

I don't even know yet. I was thinking a kids charity. I wonder what he will say.

[Butthead]

i would not pay you. your argument is bunk.

[winmutt]

How?

[winmutt]

PS the article is interesting http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

I am all for showing as many sides of the story as possible. Unlike Ga where we just didn't talk about the war of northern aggression, atleast they are showing both sides. I think it sucks that in Texas they weren't willing to cover the native as well as the God fearing whities. I guess every state has their "we wont talk about this on an open table" time periods.

[wallypiper]

OK. I'll play. Let's look at your definition of "separate". to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier or space

Separate is a verb, of course so we need to actually talk about the noun, "separation". It's not a big deal but it is the word in question. In the context of the phrase "separation of church and state", it means the state of being separate. That is, it describes the church and state as being apart from one another.

Now lets examine the words in the constitution and see if they mandate such a condition. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " What that says is that congress can't pass a law that prevents or inhibits or encourages or mandates the establishment of religion. "Establishment", in this context, may mean "creation" as in "starting" or "creating" a religion. On the other hand, it could mean establishment in the sense of a system of religion or the bureaucracy of one, if you will. Note that wording is not "the establishment of a religion, which is what you would probably say if your meaning was the creation of a new religion but rather "the establishment of religion" which more likely means establishment in the sense of the structure and system of religion. It is, in my opinion, not likely that they even considered the creation of a new religion to be a concept worthy of mention. So they were saying that congress can't pass a law telling a church how they should be organized. And then they go on to say that congress can't make a law prohibiting the practicing of religion, which is straightforward enough.

Nowhere in there does it say that congress can't consider the teachings or tenets of a religion in deciding what laws they should pass. Nor does it say that congress can't base a law on the beliefs of one religion as opposed to the beliefs of another. And it certainly doesn't say that a religion can't have input to or influence on the process and direction of the lawmaking process. In fact, that is markedly absent from the statement. In other words, the prohibition is only in one direction. Congress can't pass a law telling a church how they should be organized or what the adherents should or should not do but the adherents are certainly free to petition congress to pass laws that are based on their beliefs.

I don't see how you can argue with that last sentence. Let me repeat it, separately, so you can clearly grasp it.

Congress cannot pass a law that forces a church to be organized in a certain way or prevents people from doing what that religion instructs them to do but those people and that church are not in any way prohibited from influencing congress to pass laws that are based on their beliefs.

Separation does not exist when only one side is encumbered. In order for separation to exist, both sides must be restricted. The constitution does not, and in my opinion was not intended, to restrict the church from influencing the government but only to prevent the government from attempting to control or influence the church. That isn't separation.

Remember that the context of this important statement in the constitution was the background of religious persecution in Europe, where states banned the practice of some religions. Many of the people that came here from Europe did so specifically to escape that situation. Note that they did not come here and establish secular communities. Quite the opposite. Most came and established church based communities which they had been prevented from doing in the countries they left. It is that history of religious prohibition and restriction that led to the inclusion of the famous clause in the constitution. The idea that you should, or even could, rule a nation without the input and influence of the church as a guiding force was not even on the table.

[winmutt]

OK. I'll play. Let's look at your definition of "separate". to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier or space

Thanks for making my point. You attempted to argue "the notion" of separation of church and state. Separation- the state of being separated. One definition of the verbs is "to block off". Yet here we have the government blocked from taking action in the church. If one of two parties can not take part in the other than you have separation. I am arguing the minutia of the statement not "the notion".


The idea that you should, or even could, rule a nation without the input and influence of the church as a guiding force was not even on the table.

Nor did I ever say there was, which is why making such a vague argument about the constitutions saying NOTHING about separation of church and state worth $1000 to me. Of course there is seperation. That is like when boyfriend is still in love with the girlfriend that dumped him 2 years ago. Separation CAN and DOES exist when only one side is encumbered (as you say), you are making a faulty assertion there.

[Hammerhead]

:eek: .....Wow............. :handclap:




OK. I'll play. Let's look at your definition of "separate". to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier or space

Separate is a verb, of course so we need to actually talk about the noun, "separation". It's not a big deal but it is the word in question. In the context of the phrase "separation of church and state", it means the state of being separate. That is, it describes the church and state as being apart from one another.

Now lets examine the words in the constitution and see if they mandate such a condition. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " What that says is that congress can't pass a law that prevents or inhibits or encourages or mandates the establishment of religion. "Establishment", in this context, may mean "creation" as in "starting" or "creating" a religion. On the other hand, it could mean establishment in the sense of a system of religion or the bureaucracy of one, if you will. Note that wording is not "the establishment of a religion, which is what you would probably say if your meaning was the creation of a new religion but rather "the establishment of religion" which more likely means establishment in the sense of the structure and system of religion. It is, in my opinion, not likely that they even considered the creation of a new religion to be a concept worthy of mention. So they were saying that congress can't pass a law telling a church how they should be organized. And then they go on to say that congress can't make a law prohibiting the practicing of religion, which is straightforward enough.

Nowhere in there does it say that congress can't consider the teachings or tenets of a religion in deciding what laws they should pass. Nor does it say that congress can't base a law on the beliefs of one religion as opposed to the beliefs of another. And it certainly doesn't say that a religion can't have input to or influence on the process and direction of the lawmaking process. In fact, that is markedly absent from the statement. In other words, the prohibition is only in one direction. Congress can't pass a law telling a church how they should be organized or what the adherents should or should not do but the adherents are certainly free to petition congress to pass laws that are based on their beliefs.

I don't see how you can argue with that last sentence. Let me repeat it, separately, so you can clearly grasp it.

Congress cannot pass a law that forces a church to be organized in a certain way or prevents people from doing what that religion instructs them to do but those people and that church are not in any way prohibited from influencing congress to pass laws that are based on their beliefs.

Separation does not exist when only one side is encumbered. In order for separation to exist, both sides must be restricted. The constitution does not, and in my opinion was not intended, to restrict the church from influencing the government but only to prevent the government from attempting to control or influence the church. That isn't separation.

Remember that the context of this important statement in the constitution was the background of religious persecution in Europe, where states banned the practice of some religions. Many of the people that came here from Europe did so specifically to escape that situation. Note that they did not come here and establish secular communities. Quite the opposite. Most came and established church based communities which they had been prevented from doing in the countries they left. It is that history of religious prohibition and restriction that led to the inclusion of the famous clause in the constitution. The idea that you should, or even could, rule a nation without the input and influence of the church as a guiding force was not even on the table.

[winmutt]

Oh he's right, all but in the assertion that in order for two entities to be separate that they must be wholly heterogeneous.

[wallypiper]

That is like when boyfriend is still in love with the girlfriend that dumped him 2 years ago. Separation CAN and DOES exist when only one side is encumbered (as you say), you are making a faulty assertion there.

To fully equate your analogy to the situation with our government and the church, you have to allow the boyfriend to still be able to kiss the girlfriend, even thought the girlfriend is not able to kiss back. In fact, she (as the government) is not allowed to stop him from kissing her if he wants to. The boyfriend (the church) is not limited but the girlfriend is. They are not separate at all unless both agree to be separate, especially if the girlfriend is prohibited from making rules about what the boyfriend can do.

[Dan43]

I would argue that the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in fact means that Congress can not pass laws grounded in religion.

[Karl Hungus]

Passing a law saying that women can't attend church when they're on the rag would be an intrusion, and it's already a rule anyway.