'separation of church and state.' Sadly, that is a widely believed myth.

[freakazoid]

Note: This from a post I wrote in another forum...


RE: "Oh Utah, a theocratic state that proves its safe to ignore the separation clause."


If you are referring to a 'clause' that is said to be in the U.S. Constitution of the 'separation of church and state', there is no such 'clause' mandating any 'separation of church and state.' Sadly, that is a widely believed myth.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution are the words 'separation of church and state' even used. The first amendment simply prohibits congress from enacting laws prohibiting and/or establishing an institution of religion and religious practice as written.........

'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

The concept of the 'separation of church and state' was an idea expressed by the newly elected President Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist denomination on Jan 1, 1801 who had written him with their concerns of religious freedom and the freedom from religious persecution. He replyed in his letter the following:


On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson


One point I think should be made here is that it is reasonable to state that you cannot expect government to be completely separated from the church or religious matters. What if a said religion has, as a regular part of its religious expression, the offering of human sacrifices or sexual relations with minors or the use of dangerous drugs? Obviously in matters such as this the government does and should cross the line of ‘separation between Church and State’ and prohibit such ‘religious behavior.’ The REAL question here is how far does society deem reasonable for the State to cross the line and when has the State gone too far? Sometimes that can be a very tough question.

Additionally; is it a violation of the concept of the separation between Church and State when people of religion and religious institutions seek to change, influence and regulate government as is the right of all Americans?


For more reading on this matter - http://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

On a related issue, how can the government make it illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays? This law appears to be in place ONLY in respect to the establishment of some religion. Sunday is widely known as the Lord's day, and this appears to be the only driving reason. It appears that this law was put into place only to appease those with certain religious beliefs, forbidding others to get the alcohol that we so desperately need to make the boring weekends pass faster!

[freakazoid]

On a related issue, how can the government make it illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays? This law appears to be in place ONLY in respect to the establishment of some religion. Sunday is widely known as the Lord's day, and this appears to be the only driving reason. It appears that this law was put into place only to appease those with certain religious beliefs, forbidding others to get the alcohol that we so desperately need to make the boring weekends pass faster!

I agree, they (the government) have no right to do so and you are correct, it is the passing of a law "in respect to the establishment of some religion." Or, you could say they passed such laws pursuant to a religious belief of Sunday being a day of religious observation. If this was not true than why not prohibit the selling of alcohol on Monday, Saturday or any day? :confused:

[Zzyzx]

I agree, they (the government) have no right to do so and you are correct, it is the passing of a law "in respect to the establishment of some religion." Or, you could say they passed such laws pursuant to a religious belief of Sunday being a day of religious observation. If this was not true than why not prohibit the selling of alcohol on Monday, Saturday or any day? :confused:

No, the government has every right to outlaw liquor sales on Sundays. Why? Because the majority rules in this country. If the people stand up, for whatever reason, clamor for tighter liquor restrictions, write their representatives, and successfully get their proposition on a ballot, then it's up to the voters. It doesn't matter whether they're motivated by the All-Mighty or Tony the Tiger; if that's the way the majority feels, then that's the way it'll be.

And guess what? That's the way the majority felt about a century ago.

Don't misunderstand; I love a good buzz as much as anyone else (and I WON'T buy 3.2% beer, you Coloradan assholes), but I'm not part of this backwards crusade against everything and anything dealing with religion. This whole "separation of church and state" business was created to prevent maniacal religious leaders with enormous weight (cough cough Pope cough) from dictating in the shadows. I consider myself agnostic / atheist / going to hell, depending on when you ask me, but I have no problem with "In God We Trust" being written on everything, saying "one nation under God" during the pledge, or bowing my head when my host graces dinner.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

No, the government has every right to outlaw liquor sales on Sundays. Why? Because the majority rules in this country. If the people stand up, for whatever reason, clamor for tighter liquor restrictions, write their representatives, and successfully get their proposition on a ballot, then it's up to the voters. It doesn't matter whether they're motivated by the All-Mighty or Tony the Tiger; if that's the way the majority feels, then that's the way it'll be.

And guess what? That's the way the majority felt about a century ago.

Don't misunderstand; I love a good buzz as much as anyone else (and I WON'T buy 3.2% beer, you Coloradan assholes), but I'm not part of this backwards crusade against everything and anything dealing with religion. This whole "separation of church and state" business was created to prevent maniacal religious leaders with enormous weight (cough cough Pope cough) from dictating in the shadows. I consider myself agnostic / atheist / going to hell, depending on when you ask me, but I have no problem with "In God We Trust" being written on everything, saying "one nation under God" during the pledge, or bowing my head when my host graces dinner.

That's right, a century ago. I think that majority opinion has changed and the law should be looked at again. If you don't want to drink on Sundays then don't. Those of us who do should by no reason be limmited by the law to do so, it makes no sense.

[freakazoid]

No, the government has every right to outlaw liquor sales on Sundays. Why? Because the majority rules in this country. If the people stand up, for whatever reason, clamor for tighter liquor restrictions, write their representatives, and successfully get their proposition on a ballot, then it's up to the voters. It doesn't matter whether they're motivated by the All-Mighty or Tony the Tiger; if that's the way the majority feels, then that's the way it'll be.

And guess what? That's the way the majority felt about a century ago.

Don't misunderstand; I love a good buzz as much as anyone else (and I WON'T buy 3.2% beer, you Coloradan assholes), but I'm not part of this backwards crusade against everything and anything dealing with religion. This whole "separation of church and state" business was created to prevent maniacal religious leaders with enormous weight (cough cough Pope cough) from dictating in the shadows. I consider myself agnostic / atheist / going to hell, depending on when you ask me, but I have no problem with "In God We Trust" being written on everything, saying "one nation under God" during the pledge, or bowing my head when my host graces dinner.

RE: "majority rules in this country."

That is true, but NOT if the "rules" violate the Constitution which was written (especially the Bill of Rights) to protect the rights of the MINORITY from majority rule when such majority rules are wrong, unjust or unconstitutional. If rule making in this country were soley based on "majority rule" we will would not need a Bill of Rights.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

RE: "majority rules in this country."

That is true, but NOT if the "rules" violate the Constitution which was written (especially the Bill of Rights) to protect the rights of the MINORITY from majority rule when such majority rules are wrong, unjust or unconstitutional. If rule making in this country were soley based on "majority rule" we will would not need a Bill of Rights.

well said. It is similar to the problem with cigarrette smoking. The majority would love to have it outlawed, but we can't because the dumbasses who do smoke have the right to if they so wish. But at least we can progress by telling them that they haven't got the right to exhale the smoke into the air that we wish to breathe.

[Zzyzx]

That is true, but NOT if the "rules" violate the Constitution which was written (especially the Bill of Rights) to protect the rights of the MINORITY from majority rule when such majority rules are wrong, unjust or unconstitutional.

Of course. If the majority wanted to make Sunday church services mandatory, then that'd be a flagrant violation of the Constitution. Although a person's opinion of whether liquor should be allowed to be sold on Sundays may be based on their religious beliefs, I don't see any problem with it in terms of the constitution. Abortion laws are great examples, too, but I don't want to start with that here.

Besides, the minority will always see the majority's rules as "wrong" and "unjust". That's why they're the minority. Don't jump too quick on the unconstitutional bandwagon, though.

Lemme just say, as a non-smoker, that those smoking ban ordinances are absolute bullshit. We've had one in my town for the last couple years, and Colorado just recently passed their own, statewide ban on public smoking. If a bar wants to be smoke-free, then that should be their decision. I'm totally against the Sunday liquor laws, too. I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that they're 100% legal within our system.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

It's an iffy question as to how legal the ban on selling alcohol on Sundays is. The reason behind the ban is what should determine its legality. If it simply is a majority push based on religion, I'd have to say it is illegal. However, if the statistics say that things such as accidents, crime and the such are much more likely with the sale of liquor on sundays, or some other convincing reason, then it is legal; but it's STILL BULLSHIT!

[Zzyzx]

I see your point, but does there have to be a reason for a law to reach the legislative floors? You'll need a good one in order to gather support, sure, but do you need one just to get it on the ballot?

If I want to outlaw, say, bottled water and I collect the necessary number of signatures, do I need to explain why? To who? I've got the signatures to prove that people agree with me. We feel that bottled water should be outlawed (which may or may not be a result of our religious convictions). Who are you to stop us?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

All laws need a reason to remain in existance. It is generally not until someone gets into trouble for violating stupid laws however, that their stupid reasons are debated, and then the laws may or may not be revoked. To sell liquor in the first place you need a license, and in obtaining that license you agree not to violate such a law, which really holds the entire thing together. Those who have the power to violate this law and be heard for their reasons are restrained from the get-go by their liquor licenses.

[Zzyzx]

It is generally not until someone gets into trouble for violating stupid laws however, that their stupid reasons are debated, and then the laws may or may not be revoked.

Aha! Exactly. A law doesn't NEED to have a good reason to be in existence, it only needs one in order to stay in existence. The Sunday liquor law has crappy reasoning, but some people agree (for their own, unspecified reasons), and that makes it okay.

All this talk about liquor....damnit. I actually read somewhere that liquor store owners enjoy having a day off on Sunday.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

of course they like having a day off, I'm sure they'd love to have two like your average american gets. Everyone likes to have at least one day where they can say FUCK IT ALL and do whatever the hell they feel like.

[freakazoid]

Of course. If the majority wanted to make Sunday church services mandatory, then that'd be a flagrant violation of the Constitution. Although a person's opinion of whether liquor should be allowed to be sold on Sundays may be based on their religious beliefs, I don't see any problem with it in terms of the constitution. Abortion laws are great examples, too, but I don't want to start with that here.

Besides, the minority will always see the majority's rules as "wrong" and "unjust". That's why they're the minority. Don't jump too quick on the unconstitutional bandwagon, though.

Lemme just say, as a non-smoker, that those smoking ban ordinances are absolute bullshit. We've had one in my town for the last couple years, and Colorado just recently passed their own, statewide ban on public smoking. If a bar wants to be smoke-free, then that should be their decision. I'm totally against the Sunday liquor laws, too. I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that they're 100% legal within our system.
RE: "If the majority wanted to make Sunday church services mandatory, then that'd be a flagrant violation of the Constitution."

You are correct, but I see a problem with restricting an otherwise lawful behavior solely based on "respecting an institution of religion" or it's ideas and standards. I.e., banning alcohol sales on Sunday (Sunday being widely regarded as "The Lord's Day" by most religious people). Regarding Sunday as a day unfit for alcohol sales on obvious religious basis is most definitely an expression of a religious institution and it's beliefs and purposes. It is a form of forcing the non-religious members of society to conform to religious principles and practices possibly against their wills and their right to be free to purchase, as I said, a lawful commodity on any other day. I see this as a blatant violation of the First Amendment. There is, accourding to the First Amendment, to be no laws of this type in The United States... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Here's an idea! How about we start a new religion whose standards require the purchase of alcohol of Sundays or else go to hell. That way they'll HAVE to see it our way and legalize the sale of alcohol on Sundays! There can be NO question about whether its just a religious thing or something more!

[freakazoid]

Here's an idea! How about we start a new religion whose standards require the purchase of alcohol of Sundays or else go to hell. That way they'll HAVE to see it our way and legalize the sale of alcohol on Sundays! There can be NO question about whether its just a religious thing or something more!

Now that is a GREAT idea! Love it! Sometimes I think the law makers of this country have forgotten what the phrase CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW in fact means! This is not a suggestion and or a mere concept. It is, in fact, a strong statement and one that they are no less than COMMANDED to follow and obey or face the consequences of a blatant violation of the supreme law of the land which is the U.S. Constitution. High crimes and mistrerminors perhaps? What could be a higher crime in this country than the blatant disregard of our Constitution?

[Zzyzx]

It is a form of forcing the non-religious members of society to conform to religious principles and practices possibly against their wills and their right to be free to purchase, as I said, a lawful commodity on any other day. I see this as a blatant violation of the First Amendment. There is, accourding to the First Amendment, to be no laws of this type in The United States... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Being a frequent patron to local malted beverage vendors and not a member of any established religion I feel I can safely say that I have never felt pressure to convert as a result of a dry Sunday. Besides, I don't think I've ever had a dry Sunday! I'm very rarely insufficiently supplied.

You know - forget it - I agree with you about the religious aspect of the Sunday liquor law and I've agreed since the beginning. I just love a good argument and I'm willing to lie to get it.

That said, there are some other reasons why states would elect to keep these antiquated laws around. In Colorado, for example, liquor stores are closed but grocery stores are allowed to sell 3.2 beer on Sundays.

"Most liquor store owners don't support Sunday sales, said Chuck Ford, lobbyist for the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association. He said that if liquor stores can sell on Sundays, then stores that sell 3.2 beverages will want to sell "real" alcoholic beverages too."

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/01/22/news/regional/6732c870b279f83387256f92000ace53.txt

My lovely state, however, is so lax with our liquor laws that it's 100% legal and not uncommon for all the passengers in a car to pass around a bottle once we, I mean "they", hit the state line.

I've lost track of the "separation of church and state" thing, haven't I?

[freakazoid]

Being a frequent patron to local malted beverage vendors and not a member of any established religion I feel I can safely say that I have never felt pressure to convert as a result of a dry Sunday. Besides, I don't think I've ever had a dry Sunday! I'm very rarely insufficiently supplied.

You know - forget it - I agree with you about the religious aspect of the Sunday liquor law and I've agreed since the beginning. I just love a good argument and I'm willing to lie to get it.

That said, there are some other reasons why states would elect to keep these antiquated laws around. In Colorado, for example, liquor stores are closed but grocery stores are allowed to sell 3.2 beer on Sundays.

"Most liquor store owners don't support Sunday sales, said Chuck Ford, lobbyist for the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association. He said that if liquor stores can sell on Sundays, then stores that sell 3.2 beverages will want to sell "real" alcoholic beverages too."

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/01/22/news/regional/6732c870b279f83387256f92000ace53.txt

My lovely state, however, is so lax with our liquor laws that it's 100% legal and not uncommon for all the passengers in a car to pass around a bottle once we, I mean "they", hit the state line.

I've lost track of the "separation of church and state" thing, haven't I?

3.2 beer on Sundays? LOL, what the hell is the point of that? To each person, or no more than 3.2 beer all day Sunday? LMAO!

Also, interesting article.

[dirkydirk]

I Am Danielle Collins And I Hate U Blacks! And Jews! Csllme If U Agree! 5082225474.. Or 7742545098! I Am Danielle Collins!!!!!! I Am The Best!

[freakazoid]

I Am Danielle Collins And I Hate U Blacks! And Jews! Csllme If U Agree! 5082225474.. Or 7742545098! I Am Danielle Collins!!!!!! I Am The Best!

Sick comment, you are a sick person, probably nothing more than a comment board troll. Your post is worthless.

[Zzyzx]

Sounds to me like someone's playing a dirty trick on Danielle Collins. I bet she'd be pissed.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

yes, it does sound suspiciously similar to a tale of vengence that has been posted on this site.

[freakazoid]

yes, it does sound suspiciously similar to a tale of vengence that has been posted on this site.

Sounds like some sick dipshit needs to be banned. :mad:

[sickofthisshit!!]

For the last how maney years have we wached on the news bullsith about seperation of church and state. So far all it has been is a lot of whining and pussyass crying beacous some fucked up bitch dont like the activtiy setting with Jesus,Marry,and Joesef. because it reminds her of the birth control abortion she had. now that aint all why stop thair now there are heethens ofended by our monney so what do we do "CHANGE THE GOD DAMM MONEY" . Europ settlers first came hear for this thing called RELIGOUS FREEDOM.These pepole who are upset over a dollar bill that reads IN GOD WE TRUST or get mad at the standard christmas activity setting should keep this in mind it was not put in the constition for controvercy it was put there so realgious leaders could not run the country.

[freakazoid]

For the last how maney years have we wached on the news bullsith about seperation of church and state. So far all it has been is a lot of whining and pussyass crying beacous some fucked up bitch dont like the activtiy setting with Jesus,Marry,and Joesef. because it reminds her of the birth control abortion she had. now that aint all why stop thair now there are heethens ofended by our monney so what do we do "CHANGE THE GOD DAMM MONEY" . Europ settlers first came hear for this thing called RELIGOUS FREEDOM.These pepole who are upset over a dollar bill that reads IN GOD WE TRUST or get mad at the standard christmas activity setting should keep this in mind it was not put in the constition for controvercy it was put there so realgious leaders could not run the country.
Two words..... "spell checker." Otherwise, a couple of good points.

[Nobody]

3.2 beer on Sundays? LOL, what the hell is the point of that? To each person, or no more than 3.2 beer all day Sunday? LMAO!

Also, interesting article.
The way I heard it,was 3.2 beer, and Sharps were developed for people that don't want to get drunk, but still like to throw up.

[freakazoid]

The way I heard it,was 3.2 beer, and Sharps were developed for people that don't want to get drunk, but still like to throw up.

LMAO! Sharps....blllaaahhhhhhh!!!

[Zzyzx]

The way I heard it,was 3.2 beer, and Sharps were developed for people that don't want to get drunk, but still like to throw up.

Kinda like vegetarian Hot Pockets are for those who don't want to eat meat but still want diarrhea, right?

~ Jim Gaffigan

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Kinda like vegetarian Hot Pockets are for those who don't want to eat meat but still want diarrhea, right?

Or like Caffiene Free Coke for those who don't want to get the buzz but still want to grow fat!

[death2chikins]

That's right, a century ago. I think that majority opinion has changed and the law should be looked at again. If you don't want to drink on Sundays then don't. Those of us who do should by no reason be limmited by the law to do so, it makes no sense.

Since when does the law ever make sense? Even the good laws that serve an actual purpose tend to have loopholes the size of Texas in them thus making them totally useless.

[who897]

I must point out, don't know if it was posted anywhere else here, THE FLYING SPEGETTI MONSTER....nuff said

[Flash The Cash]

If you are referring to a 'clause' that is said to be in the U.S. Constitution of the 'separation of church and state', there is no such 'clause' mandating any 'separation of church and state.' Sadly, that is a widely believed myth.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution are the words 'separation of church and state' even used. The first amendment simply prohibits congress from enacting laws prohibiting and/or establishing an institution of religion and religious practice as written.........

'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

The concept of the 'separation of church and state' was an idea expressed by the newly elected President Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist denomination on Jan 1, 1801.

Thomas Jefferson didn't originate the concept of no civil authority over religion, dude. The Baptists originated the idea and had been preaching it, and being persecuted for it, for at least two centuries before Jefferson was born.

[Flash The Cash]

If you are referring to a 'clause' that is said to be in the U.S. Constitution of the 'separation of church and state', there is no such 'clause' mandating any 'separation of church and state.' Sadly, that is a widely believed myth.

There doesn't need to be such a clause, dude. The U. S. Constitution, by establishing a limited government with only those powers expressly granted it and delegating it no jurisdiction or authority over the people(s) religion, exempted religion from the authority of the general government, thereby establishing what we call "separation of church and state."

I hope that clears up your confusion, hombre.

[hitekredneck]

There doesn't need to be such a clause, dude. The U. S. Constitution, by establishing a limited government with only those powers expressly granted it and delegating it no jurisdiction or authority over the people(s) religion, exempted religion from the authority of the general government, thereby establishing what we call "separation of church and state."

I hope that clears up your confusion, hombre.

good point, mang...a lot of people dont seem to realize that "seperation of church and state" keeps the government from ruling religious practices and churches...for some reason, people want to believe that it keeps politicians from practising or some such idiocy

[Flash The Cash]

If you are referring to a 'clause' that is said to be in the U.S. Constitution of the 'separation of church and state', there is no such 'clause' mandating any 'separation of church and state.' Sadly, that is a widely believed myth.

That's true. The founders put Separation of Church and State in the Constitution by what they didn't do. They didn't grant the U. S. Government any power whatsoever over religion. They believed that God had absolute and exclusive authority over religion and that civil government has no legitimate authority whatsoever over religion.

[Flash The Cash]

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution are the words 'separation of church and state' even used.

The words "separation of church and state" were not put into the Texas Constitution of 1845, but the concept sure as hell was.


Texans Didn’t Want Mixing of Church and State in 1845

The excerpts presented below are from the speeches of the delegates to the 1845 Texas Constitution on the issue of Separation of Church and State.

Mr. Baylor spoke in support of the proposed ban on members of the clergy serving as State Legislators and said that the ban was calculated to keep clear and well defined the distinction between Church and State, so essentially necessary to human liberty and happiness. Page 163, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

Mr. Davis said The only reason why I rise is that during my canvass in Liberty County, I was accused of wishing to unite Church and State, in consequence of my opinions upon this subject. I deny that it is uniting Church and State to permit ministers of the gospel to participate in the legislation of the country. Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Davis expressed his view that if an effort is desired to be made by the religious portion of the community to unite Church and State, may it not as well be made by the members of the churches as ministers of the gospel? Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Love pointed out that Protestants marked out a different line of policy. They said it was wrong to unite church and State, wrong that the law should settle the rule of faith, and regulate the religion of Jesus Christ. They would not admit that men should be subject to human authority in matters of opinion: they denied the right to control the conscience, it claimed the right to worship as they pleased; although they submitted to the authority of the law, necessary to prevent crime and preserve the good order of society. It was the cause of the success of Protestantism. Page 170, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Brown said that religion and politics are things that must forever run in parallel lines which never meet; for whenever they meet, there is contamination, and religion has in it much more of earth than heaven. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Brown I am not willing upon any consideration to relinquish the principle that Church and State, by every mode that can enter into the imagination of this body, should be kept separate, that neither may become corrupt, that religion should have its, powerful sway and benefit influence over private life, and that political affairs should rest in the hands of political men: This, sir, is a discrimination which I feel bound to observe. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Brown - It seems to me safer and better for the institution of religion and better for the institution of government, that the two bodies, both grasping at power, both capable of forming contributions, formidable to liberty on the one hand and to religion on the other, should be kept forever separate and distinct. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Evans stated they have declared in that Bill of Rights that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences: that no man shall be compelled to attend or support a place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience: and that no preference shall ever be given by law, to any religious societies, or mode of worship. Is not that article amply sufficient guard and security against the union of church and state? If not, I will go with any gentleman to make it stronger. But how does the exclusion of the ministers of religion from our legislative halls tend to defeat the ruin of church and state. What bearing has such an exclusion upon it? I say it has none at all. Page 184, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Love - In no county has there been a set of preachers who have more zealously striven to do their duty, and they have done it. Why have they done it? Because they have not mixed politics with religion. Page 172, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Broward said he was in favor of excluding ministers of the Gospel from any participation in the affairs of government. He saw, however, no necessity of expressing a reason and if there should be any he would have it a just one. If he should vote for the section, it was not for the sake of preserving the church pure and uncontaminated but for the sake of political security. He would move to strike out that part of the section relating to their "dedication to God, and the care of souls." Page 165, Debates of the Texas Convention.

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/pdf/pdf1845debates/00000016.pdf