Is the concept of a public holiday a violation of Separation of Church and State?
No.The "Separation of Church and State." It is a well accepted concept in American politics, but it has a huge problem with being invalid. Why? Glad you asked:First, it is based on only a single part of a single sentence in the 1st Amendment and conveniently leaves out the rest sentence (along with the rest of the Amendment) in the Amendment which reads, ",...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...."Second, the part of the Constitution it relies on, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is a statement restricting a positive act by government towards the establishment of a government religion, but the "separation of church and state" as it is applied a negative restriction on religion.Third, as a negative restriction on religion, the next part of the sentence, along with the majority of the amendment applies, "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."Lastly, there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. The exact language is:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; 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."The Johnson Amendment that prohibits religious contributions in politics is not a law that ESTABLISHES a government religion. It is a law that is PROHIBITS the free exercise thereof.Activist liberal judges have been tearing up our Constitution to the benefit of Democrats for many decades.
The separation of the church and the state shall be inviolable? WHY?
case study: the Philippine government authorized a specific stamp on the occasion of the observance of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress to be held in Manila under the sponsorship of the catholic church. on the other hand, the map of the Philippines is shown. in this conception, the head of the Philippine Independent Church (Aglipayan) contented thatthis violated the constitution in as much as it benefited a certain religion. * is there really a violation of the constitutional provision that "the separation of the church and the state shall be inviolable"? WHY?
Separation of Church and State?
For starters, this isn't in the constitution, nor do those words appear anywhere in the constitution or the amendments. It's actually a legal concept ripped from the first amendment, and what it means is that the government can't establish a particular religion but rather it is meant to encourage the expression of religion. I agree that the government shouldn't mandate what people believe or don't believe, and it shouldn't place restrictions on the expression of it. If a religious club wants to meet at school, they should be allowed as long as they are paying for any accured utility costs. Businesses should freely allow Holiday displays...whether it's a nativity or star of David or Virgin Mary. Why would you suppress people's celebration of their faith? Displays are not hurting anyone, and if your eyes are so sensitive that it can't bear to look at a baby in a manger or Menorah, then stay home. People who complain about others who say "Merry Christmas!" or put up Nativity displays need to relax. Would you go to someone's birthday party and refuse to let others wish them a happy birthday or complain about the party display just because it's not your birthday that's being celebrated? No, because it's THEIR birthday and they have a right to celebrate it anyway they desire. Why wouldn't you be happy for them and wish them a happy birthday, even if it wasn't your birthday? I think people have gone overboard, to think that people should only practice what they believe in the privacy of their own home. As long as the religion or faith or lack thereof isn't physically hurting anyone or forced upon anyone, it should be allowed wherever. Why wouldn't you want people to practice something that makes them happy or feel at peace or gives their lives meaning and purpose?
If there is really a separation of church and state in America then why is Dec 25th a national holiday?
Separation of church and state is not a legal term, in the United States. It is a descriptive term, used by Thomas Jefferson, to describe the intent of the text in the First Amendment.The First Amendment states: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.Jefferson believed that the church shouldn’t tell the state how to do its job and the state shouldn’t tell the church how to do its job.It is not an establishment of religion to give people a day off of work. It is not an establishment of religion to acknowledge the presence of religious practice. It is not an establishment of religion to use vocabulary of religious origin.The origin of December 25th as a national holiday is a bill that Congress passed in 1870. Strictly, that bill was put in effect only for Washington D.C., but was later expanded. That bill was originated not by any religious institution, but by the banks, seeking some standardization of days of operation. H.R. 2224 requested that January 1st, July 4th, December 25th, and Thanksgiving day be established as holidays.The bill was not establishing that there should be holidays on those days, it was acknowledging that the public, in general, was already treating those days as holidays and for efficiency of business, the government should too.I’m a federal employee. The government tells me not to come to work on December 25th (unless I’m needed on console). When they do that, they aren’t telling me I have to engage in any particular religious practice, they are just saying don’t come to work.
In your opinion, what does the separation of church and state mean?
Separation is a poor choice of words and is not in the constitution or the Bill of Rights. Today, people have locked onto the phrase as being the law of the land, and frankly it is not and never has been. A country that’s had the words “in God we Trust” printed on their paper money for decades clearly is not creating an artificial separation between government and religion. Religion has played a very important role in the growth and development of this country. The government should not endorse or force religious beliefs; but to ignore our past just because a lot of it involved religion is nonsense. I’m not a Mormon. But, I do think that it would be silly for the state of Utah to be forced to remove all things remotely Mormon from all public buildings and public places. Mormons and their beliefs are a part of the history and culture of the state. Basically this separation of church and state thing has gotten out of hand and is being directed toward a lot of things that may haven’t really been holy or religious for decades. Christmas for starters, has become the most commercial of all holidays. People of many different faiths, with no faith still celebrate Christmas. It’s a celebration of life, of hope and of people. Some people take the baby and the manger very seriously. Some people take it as just another one of the Christmas stories like Santa Clause or Frosty the Snowman. And that’s what makes America great. People are free to pick and choose how they perceive the many icons our culture presents. America is the great melting pot of culture and celebration. And if some of the festivities or decorations or stories happen to spill over onto government buildings and property remember; even Scrooge had to give in to Christmas eventually. And besides, in the end, it’s the people who own them buildings anyway.
Is Christmas a religious holiday?
In the United States of America, Christmas is a FEDERAL holiday. It doesn't matter if you're a fundamentalist who thinks it's too pagan, it's still a federal holiday. It doesn't matter if you're an atheist and you think it's too religious and it violates separation of church and state, it's still a FEDERAL holiday. If you don't like it then take your gripes to the US Congress and demand they repeal the holiday under the law but your whining about all that are not my personal problem, or the problem of my school district, or the problem of my municipality...so leave the rest of us alone. BTW I notice most of you don't have the same gripes about Thanksgiving holiday, which is based on the idea of giving thanks to God for a bountiful harvest.
Does banning pork in public school violate the law of separation between state and religion?
> Does banning pork in public school violate the law of separation between state and religion?The story in your first link did not happen. http://www.snopes.com/washington... The website you linked to lied, presumably in order to con people into supporting their far-right political agenda.Your second, fourth, and fifth links simply make claims about “Muslim demands” and don’t show any “bans” of pork.Your third link is to a St Luis Public School webpage in which they claim all meals are pork free. In that case the Constitutionality would depend on the intent and outcome of the decision. If they actually “banned” pork for purposes of promoting a religion, then yes that would be unconstitutional. If they simply avoid purchasing pork for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, such as price or demand, then no it wouldn’t be. If they’re using their purchase-decisions to accommodate members of one religion at the expense of others, then I don’t think it would be clear how the courts would rule.
Are you for friendly or hostile separation of church and state?
Scholars have distinguished between what are sometimes called "friendly" and "hostile" separations of church and state. The friendly type limits the interference of the church in matters of the state but also limits the interference of the state in church matters. The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to confine religion purely to the home or church and limits religious education, religious rites of passage and public displays of faith. The hostile model of militant secularism arose with the French Revolution and is typified in the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Constitution of 1931. The hostile model exhibited during these events can be seen as approaching the type of political religion seen in totalitarian states. The French separation of 1905 and the Spanish separation of 1931 have been characterized as the two most hostile of the twentieth century, although the current schemes in those countries are considered generally friendly. France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, however, still considers the current scheme a "negative laicite" and wants to develop a "positive laicite" more open to religion. The hostilities of the state toward religion have been seen as a cause of civil war in Spain and Mexico. The French philosopher and a drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Jacques Maritain, noted the distinction between the models found in France and in the mid-twentieth century United States. He considered the U.S. model of that time to be more amicable, because it had both "sharp distinction and actual cooperation" between church and state, what he called "an historical treasure", and he admonished the United States: "Please to God that you keep it carefully, and do not let your concept of separation veer round to the European one." In addition under "political religion": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion States sanctioning hostile separation: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, Showa Japan, North Korea, Turkmenistan (1st Amendment, clauses on religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof")