What does "Separation of Church and State" mean?

[Angrboda]

Madison seemed to be under the impression that he had written it into the Constitution (italics mine):

"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."--James Madison; "Detached Memoranda," date of authorship unknown, estimated between 1817 and 1832

Is Thomas Jefferson important in 20/21 th century USA?
I always see united statians quoting these oldies.
Thomas Jefferson time is over. He died. His family and friends died as well a long time ago.

Decide for yourself what kind of a world you want to live in. Decide for yourself if you want a separation of church and state. Discuss the benefits and losses instead of quoting what some guy from another century has said.

PS: I'm in Canada. I've never seen anyone quote some canadian politician from long ago when it comes to deciding on important questions of today.

--Ferrocyanide

The point is that American government is a descendant of English law in which individual rights and precedent are paramount. It's fine to break with the past so long as those still living under a structure built from those past precedents is on board with it. Breaking with the past in a way which breaks what isn't broken--precedent and continuity-- is illegitimate and dangerous. The future needs to build on the past if for no other reason that that is where the mandate for and rules for breaking from the past come from. Just taking a left turn out of nowhere without any previous structural restraint simply ain't cricket. It's like changing the rules of chess in midgame--once you start with some rules, unless you're going to start a new game, you should follow through with those rules. Especially the rules about making changes.

[Brian37]

Is Thomas Jefferson important in 20/21 th century USA?
I always see united statians quoting these oldies.
Thomas Jefferson time is over. He died. His family and friends died as well a long time ago.

Decide for yourself what kind of a world you want to live in. Decide for yourself if you want a separation of church and state. Discuss the benefits and losses instead of quoting what some guy from another century has said.

PS: I'm in Canada. I've never seen anyone quote some canadian politician from long ago when it comes to deciding on important questions of today.

--Ferrocyanide

The point is that American government is a descendant of English law in which individual rights and precedent are paramount.  It's fine to break with the past so long as those still living under a structure built from those past precedents is on board with it.  Breaking with the past in a way which breaks what isn't broken--precedent and continuity-- is illegitimate and dangerous.  The future needs to build on the past if for no other reason that that is where the mandate for and rules for breaking from the past come from.  Just taking a left turn out of nowhere without any previous structural restraint simply ain't cricket.  It's like changing the rules of chess in midgame--once you start with some rules, unless you're going to start a new game, you should follow through with those rules.  Especially the rules about making changes.

Um depends on what period of history of England one is talking about. It started out as being ruled by a ruling family, and those are basically dictatorships. The idea of peoples rights only new in human history. It is also false to think that Greece and Rome were the seat of modern democracy. They certainly had "senates" but they were, like England, ruled by a ruling family. 

This was the actual first attempt at "we the people" in England rule, although it did not last.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

It should be said that the current Queen has "technical" absolute rule, but she knows her history. I do hate however, when our American right wing point to the Magna Carta.

Currently England treats it's "Royalty" as more of  a living museum family. But also the Queen can't be voted out of office like an American President.

[Ferrocyanide]

Is Thomas Jefferson important in 20/21 th century USA?
I always see united statians quoting these oldies.
Thomas Jefferson time is over. He died. His family and friends died as well a long time ago.

Decide for yourself what kind of a world you want to live in. Decide for yourself if you want a separation of church and state. Discuss the benefits and losses instead of quoting what some guy from another century has said.

PS: I'm in Canada. I've never seen anyone quote some canadian politician from long ago when it comes to deciding on important questions of today.

--Ferrocyanide

Should we just forget things done in the past?  Scratch them after some expiration date and start over?

Does that include technological and medical findings?  Like, should we ditch penicillin, it's a pretty old drug and the man who discovered it and its used is long dead.  Sheesh - a one hundred year old medication - trash it.

Well, look at  Saudi Arabia. For a long time they didn't allow women to drive. You need to sit down at the table of civilization and discuss why that law exists. You might also want to invite women at the table and treat them as human beings with brains rather than human beings with just a body.
Maybe it benefited their grandparents long ago. Or maybe their grandparents were just jerks.
My view is that they were just jerks. That's when things get messy. Everyone starts pushing their own opinion.

If penicillin works, then keep it. What do you want to throw away? The method of preparation? The method of injection? The research documents?

--Ferrocyanide

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The point is that American government is a descendant of English law in which individual rights and precedent are paramount.  It's fine to break with the past so long as those still living under a structure built from those past precedents is on board with it.  Breaking with the past in a way which breaks what isn't broken--precedent and continuity-- is illegitimate and dangerous.  The future needs to build on the past if for no other reason that that is where the mandate for and rules for breaking from the past come from.  Just taking a left turn out of nowhere without any previous structural restraint simply ain't cricket.  It's like changing the rules of chess in midgame--once you start with some rules, unless you're going to start a new game, you should follow through with those rules.  Especially the rules about making changes.

Um depends on what period of history of England one is talking about. It started out as being ruled by a ruling family, and those are basically dictatorships. The idea of peoples rights only new in human history. It is also false to think that Greece and Rome were the seat of modern democracy. They certainly had "senates" but they were, like England, ruled by a ruling family. 

This was the actual first attempt at "we the people" in England rule, although it did not last.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

It should be said that the current Queen has "technical" absolute rule, but she knows her history. I do hate however, when our American right wing point to the Magna Carta.

Currently England treats it's "Royalty" as more of  a living museum family. But also the Queen can't be voted out of office like an American President.

The Queen can’t be voted out of office because she doesn’t hold an office.

Boru

[Brian37]

Um depends on what period of history of England one is talking about. It started out as being ruled by a ruling family, and those are basically dictatorships. The idea of peoples rights only new in human history. It is also false to think that Greece and Rome were the seat of modern democracy. They certainly had "senates" but they were, like England, ruled by a ruling family. 

This was the actual first attempt at "we the people" in England rule, although it did not last.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

It should be said that the current Queen has "technical" absolute rule, but she knows her history. I do hate however, when our American right wing point to the Magna Carta.

Currently England treats it's "Royalty" as more of  a living museum family. But also the Queen can't be voted out of office like an American President.

The Queen can’t be voted out of office because she doesn’t hold an office.

Boru

Not currently. But most of England's royal power has been from the family in the entire history. Today's royals, like I said before act more as living museum pieces. She still acts as a diplomat.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Queen can’t be voted out of office because she doesn’t hold an office.

Boru

Not currently. But most of England's royal power has been from the family in the entire history. Today's royals, like I said before act more as living museum pieces. She still acts as a diplomat.

Not ever. Monarchy is a birthright, not an office. And Britain's royal authority had been held by several different families. The Queen is not and never has been either a diplomat or an ambassador.

You got everything wrong. Well done.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Not currently. But most of England's royal power has been from the family in the entire history. Today's royals, like I said before act more as living museum pieces. She still acts as a diplomat.

Not ever. Monarchy is a birthright, not an office. And Britain's royal authority had been held by several different families. The Queen is not and never has been either a diplomat or an ambassador.

You got everything wrong. Well done.

Boru

You think the term Hereditary Monarchy would make the obvious, And weird he thinks it's one continuous line does he not understand the Tudors for example are not the same family as the Windsors?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not ever. Monarchy is a birthright, not an office. And Britain's royal authority had been held by several different families. The Queen is not and never has been either a diplomat or an ambassador.

You got everything wrong. Well done.

Boru

You think the term Hereditary Monarchy would make the obvious, And weird he thinks it's one continuous line does he not understand the Tudors for example are not the same family as the Windsors?

He’s also - despite my best efforts - somewhat unclear about the distinction between ‘England’, ‘Great Britain’ and ‘The United Kingdom’.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

You think the term Hereditary Monarchy would make the obvious, And weird he thinks it's one continuous line does he not understand the Tudors for example are not the same family as the Windsors?

He’s also - despite my best efforts - somewhat unclear about the distinction between ‘England’, ‘Great Britain’ and ‘The United Kingdom’.

Boru

That's wild, How on earth do you confuse a Country an Island and a political alliance made up of countries on that island?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

He’s also - despite my best efforts - somewhat unclear about the distinction between ‘England’, ‘Great Britain’ and ‘The United Kingdom’.

Boru

That's wild, How on earth do you confuse a Country an Island and a political alliance made up of countries on that island?

37 has an aversion to looking things up.

Boru