(no subject)

[tinpra]

Considering all the talk about separation of church and state, a term which is not in the Constitution, btw, and has occasionally been pooh-poohed in the courts, why is Connecticut trying to get involved with the organization of "certain religious corporations"?

Or is it that they're trying to regulate corporations run/owned by religious groups, not get involved with how a religious group organizes and runs itself? I think I'd need to know more about how churches and other groups are organized (like do you have to be listed as a corporation to also be a non-profit, or can you be a non-profit anything?) to truly understand. But certainly, on the face of things, this doesn't look kosher.

Comments

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

Considering all the talk about separation of church and state, a term which is not in the Constitution, btw Well, FYI, even though the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced back to Thomas Jefferson writing a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, the fact of the matter is he was talking about the combined effect of the establishment and free exercise clauses within the first amendment. Which is in the Constitution.

[shaxberd.livejournal.com]

I think you're over-analyzing this. The intent was simply to prevent the rise of any state religion, such as the Church of England was in England, since any such institution would have a natural tendency to marginalize all other religions and eventually drive them to cross the ocean in search of another place to practice free of such persecution.

As for the law, it sounds like they want more people with taxable incomes to sit on the boards of Roman Catholic organizations. Presumably, the nuns and priests sitting on such boards don't actually earn any sort of individual income whereas lay people sitting on such boards would, just like most non-Catholic ministers and reverends earn actual incomes that are taxable. I don't think they're specifically going after the Roman Catholic church because they're Roman Catholics, but because of the lack of income that is actually taxable thing. Still, it does seem a bit underhanded to me. It's not like they would force a Connecticut politician refusing his salary to be paid, not that such a creature actually exists.

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

Are you replying to me? Because I don't think pointing out that, while the exact phrase is missing, the idea is still there (at least according to Jefferson) is over-analyzing. o_O

[shaxberd.livejournal.com]

Um... okay? I wasn't disagreeing with you. I agree that there is provision for a separation of church and state in the Constitution, specific phrase or not. I just don't think it's an intent to control the combined effect of the establishment and free exercise clauses within the first amendment. I think it was an intent to keep church and state separate, for the reasons I've suggested. :/

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

I just don't think it's an intent to control the combined effect of the establishment and free exercise clauses within the first amendment. This is why I'm wondering if you're talking to me, because I didn't say that there was any intent to control anything. In fact, I wasn't talking about my opinion on the intent of the first amendment at all. Nor was I offering any opinion on the story linked here.

Rather, I was pointing out that Prin's point, that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, is kind of a moot one. Because the phrase is derived from what a founding father interprets the first amendment as meaning. Now, if you want to say that Jefferson didn't know squat, by all means... ;-)

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

I should also add that, as "separation of church and state" comes up in a lot of the convos Prin and I have, I mentioned it, because I feel like the last time she and I talked about it, we were trying to decide where the term originated in American politics. I replied, because this was the first time I had had a chance to mention it to her. :o)

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

So it's his interpretation of the 1st Amendment. No problem. The Am doesn't say that the gov't would have nothing to do with religion, and that seems to be the interpretation of "separation of church and state" that many ppl go with today -- thus the apparent/supposed reasoning for removing things like a plaque of the Ten Commandments, not having religious songs at Christmas or not celebrating Christmas/Hanukkah/Eid in gov't offices. My point in making my statement was more along those lines.

As it's been a long time since I've read Jefferson's letters I can't say if that was also his interpretation.

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

So now we're interpreting his interpretation? Okay. :P I've been meaning to point the origin of the passage to you, BTW, because of the homosexuality thread at HC. Cause after you said that you thought the phrase appeared in Notes on the State of VA (which does have some religious stuff in it), I looked it up. :P And I just kept forgetting to tell you, LOL, and then this appeared, and clearly this was easier to get into than trying to navigate my way through the the HC thread.

But I should say that I don't think a ton of people are against all of the things you say. The last one in particular, I think most people are willing to overlook - as a ton of companies base their own holidays on when the government has off. And clearly opportunity to get off of work > religious beliefs. ;-) I must say, though, I would prefer not having Christmas music on every radio station the entire month before Christmas, religious or otherwise. Sooo annoying.

As for Jefferson himself -- he wasn't particularly interested in open demonstrations of his own faith. Nor was he a fan of "priestcraft." On the other hand, he didn't particularly care what other people believed or chose to celebrate. I think, were either of us to really research the matter, we'd find Jefferson to be contradictory. Not like that's anything new when it comes to him. :P

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

Jefferson was completely contradictory. Which is the reason why I'm a little surprised that www referenced him in her HC replies. I didn't do a whole class of Jefferson, but he was a major feature in one of them (which is why I thought the quote was from "Notes...").

But I should say that I don't think a ton of people are against all of the things you say.

I'm not quite sure whether you mean that most ppl agree with my interpretation of Jefferson's interpretation (:P) or if most ppl feel the way I do about religion-and-the-gov't, or what. But I am extremely tired and cannot vouch for the viscosity of my brain.

The last one in particular, I think most people are willing to overlook
About office holidays? Oh, yeah...I agree. I brought it up, though, b/c our mayor (who's Jewish) has put a moratorium on all religious holiday celebrations citing First Am stuff, even if the office celebrated all holidays possible.

I also agree about the Christmas music. I really like Christmas music but there's so much bad Christmas music and there doesn't seem to be any weeding out process.

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

Which is the reason why I'm a little surprised that www referenced him in her HC replies. I agree. Jefferson isn't the first person I would quote when it came to defending human equality. :P

I'm not quite sure whether you mean Oh, sorry. I meant neither of those things. I was referring to when you said that the interpretation of "separation of church and state" that most people go with today involve no religious-related gov't holidays, no Xmas music, etc. I don't think that's particularly true. The Ten Commandments plaque? Maybe, but I think that's part of a larger issue. Because you see the plaque issue come up when people talk about changing the MD state song or displaying the Confederate flag or busts of controversial individuals anywhere.