4 ms·

Unless you are agreeing with me, I will suspect that you don't get the point of this part of the amendment. It's about hands off. Understand, the church (lega

by b112 4y ago

Unless you are agreeing with me, I will suspect that you don't get the point of this part of the amendment. It's about hands off. Understand, the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws. The church came first, not state. Again, just describing how we got here.

hutzlibu 4y ago
I am not an american, but I understand it as a clear intended separation of state and church. So also no privileges especially for churches.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  no government interference in people's private religious choices or life, so that has been interpreted as no taxation of churches. But churches can't commit ritual murder or anything.
pjc50 4y ago
> the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws. Henry VIII would like a word.
- b112 4y ago
  He became the head of both church and state, they were still separate.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    No they weren't! That's what the Americans were rebelling against and specifically wrote the church-state separation to prevent. The result was both Crown control over the appointment of bishops, bishops having temporal legislative power in the House of Lords, and (relevant to this story) the seizure and in some cases destruction of basically all Church property. The UK then spent hundreds more years fighting over this relationship. People are still writing angry articles about the monarch being inextricably linked to the church in 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-to-allow-catholics-to-marry-the-monarch-2011-11?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-t... The Church of England is a state religion. It is part of the state (Crown), controlled by the state (King), and until the 19th century participation in it was effectively mandatory to participate in public life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts)
mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
Technically the religious organization in question came after the US was formed and had 23 states.

by b112 4y ago

hutzlibu 4y ago

I am not an american, but I understand it as a clear intended separation of state and church. So also no privileges especially for churches.

fsckboy 4y ago
no government interference in people's private religious choices or life, so that has been interpreted as no taxation of churches. But churches can't commit ritual murder or anything.

pjc50 4y ago

> the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws. Henry VIII would like a word.

b112 4y ago
He became the head of both church and state, they were still separate.
- pjc50 4y ago
  No they weren't! That's what the Americans were rebelling against and specifically wrote the church-state separation to prevent. The result was both Crown control over the appointment of bishops, bishops having temporal legislative power in the House of Lords, and (relevant to this story) the seizure and in some cases destruction of basically all Church property. The UK then spent hundreds more years fighting over this relationship. People are still writing angry articles about the monarch being inextricably linked to the church in 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-to-allow-catholics-to-marry-the-monarch-2011-11?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-t... The Church of England is a state religion. It is part of the state (Crown), controlled by the state (King), and until the 19th century participation in it was effectively mandatory to participate in public life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts)

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago

Technically the religious organization in question came after the US was formed and had 23 states.