US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiance
buckeye
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
[excerpt]
Thursday, May 01 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
Edited by: Michael Hess
The American Way
BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing it
again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put to
rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
I know it will happen at some time in the distant future, but I'm tired of
waiting for the cake to bake. Is it needful for these honorable men and
women to reaffirm their fidelity to their country every time they open
their sessions?
Don't any of these people deserve the respect of having their allegiance go
unquestioned? Doesn't every citizen deserve the respect of having their
allegiance accepted as a given? Does reciting the Pledge of Allegiance make
it so?
Wouldn't a spy or some other type person working undercover for a foreign
country or some terrorist organization just go ahead and recite the Pledge
of Allegiance anyway? So, what does it prove? It proves that America pays
too much attention to the vain and superficial than it does to reality and
substance.
And look at these prayers every morning. What are they but Christian
preachers delivering up instructions to God? Listen to these prayers
closely and see if they are not just basically asking God to do the right
thing and follow their instructions and explanations as they recite them
publically before Congress and the nation?
There is no Separation of Church and State in this practice, which should
never have been started in the first place. I believe it was Ben Franklin
that started the mess. I don't fault him for it. We all make mistakes.
Besides, that was a special moment and place. I wouldn't have offered up a
prayer but probably would have let out a yell and thanked God for the birth
of the United States of America.
Ben would have to agree with me today when I say that was the birth of
freedom, not only freedom of religion but freedom from religion. Good God
All Mighty, spare me from the bonds of revealed religion. Thomas Paine,
without whom it could not have been accomplished, would agree with me too.
So, what are we doing 232 years later starting the whole thing off with a
Christian prayer? We even pay for these prayers. Both the House and the
Senate have their own chaplains. Often there are guest preachers. And then
the first order of business (as I saw this morning) is for the congressman
that invited the preacher, a relative of his, to get up and talk about what
a jewel of a Christian he is.
And what have all these daily prayers gotten us? What good have they been?
What good are they? What's the purpose? I can see no other purpose than the
natural inclination to continue a worn out tradition and vain ritual that,
in effect, bonds the Church with the State right out of the box.
And as for the Pledge of Allegiance, again, we should have never allowed
that to get started. No child in school should ever be subjected to a
Pledge of Allegiance requirement. That may have been fine for a nation
ruled by Hitler, but it doesn't represent Freedom and it shouldn't
represent the United States.
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
snakehawk
> US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiancehttp://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
> [excerpt]
>
> Thursday, May 01 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
> Edited by: Michael Hess
>
> The American Way
>
> BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing it
> again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put to
> rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
> Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
> Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>
No it doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about separation of
Church and State. I looked; it isn't there. In fact, the
Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no
law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Congress has
no authority to prohibit anyone from engaging in religious exercises,
in public, in private, in prison, or even in Congress itself. Free men
are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
The Constitution, in the very same amendment, grants to all citizens
of the United States the right "peaceably to assemble." That includes
congressmen too. If Congressmen want to assemble and pray--or pray at
their assembly--no authority in the United States can stop them. They
have the constitutional right.
Now we all know that some people don't like that idea; they don't like
people to pray. Some people think it foolish, futile, and
bothersome. Some opponents to prayer simply don't believe in the same
God that Congressmen are praying to. Some don't believe in any god at
all. They are the people who twist the language of the First
Amendment prohibiting Congress from interfering with religion into a
prohibition against religion. Some sitting Judges are good at this;
they hold that while Congress cannot prohibit prayer, the courts
certainly can--and, ironically, they cite the First Amendment.
The result: one insignificant troublemaker can ask any U.S. court to
stop entire communities from exercising their Constitutional right to
practice their religion in their tax-paid public places like schools
and meeting halls. And we have meddlesome people like the author
Naman Crowe objecting to members of the Congress of the United States
taking a few minutes to recite a short prayer before getting down to
the business of trying to govern the country--Crowe claims it's
"unconstitutional." We should set aside a day of prayer for those
confused people who can't understand the plain language of the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Middle Class Warrior
> On May 8, 1:02 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiancehttp://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
>> [excerpt]
>>
>> Thursday, May 01 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
>> Edited by: Michael Hess
>>
>> The American Way
>>
>> BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing it
>> again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put to
>> rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
>> Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
>> Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>>
>
> No it doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about separation of
> Church and State. I looked; it isn't there. In fact, the
> Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no
> law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Congress has
> no authority to prohibit anyone from engaging in religious exercises,
> in public, in private, in prison, or even in Congress itself. Free men
> are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
>
state and a legal doctrine developed form these court cases. You should
also check out the Treaty of Tripoli n 1797:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of
Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of
hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties,
that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This treaty was signed by John Adams and unanimously approved by the
Senate. It provide a clear and compelling written evidence the the
Founding Fathers perceived the US as a secular state.
Why wouldn't they? The Catholic church kept Europe in the Dark ages for
1000 years and religious wars ensued between Protestants and Catholics
for hundreds of year after the Dark Ages. the US was founded on the eve
of the French Revolution which was anti-Catholic because the church had
collaborated with the monarchy for centuries.
Prayer is schools is questionable because there are so many different
religions and view points. I know that religious displays are allowed in
schools around holidays and long as more than one religion is
represented. I would prefer my kids learn something is school rather
time in prayer and other religious activities. That is what the home and
church is for.
jls
> On May 8, 1:02 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiancehttp://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
> > [excerpt]
>
> > Thursday, May 01 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
> > Edited by: Michael Hess
>
> > The American Way
>
> > BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing it
> > again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put to
> > rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
> > Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
> > Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>
> No it doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about separation of
> Church and State. I looked; it isn't there. In fact, the
> Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no
> law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Congress has
> no authority to prohibit anyone from engaging in religious exercises,
> in public, in private, in prison, or even in Congress itself. Free men
> are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
Ah, but my grubby-fingered little revisionist, you should read the
judicial gloss on the Establishment Clause and Jefferson's "Letter to
the Baptists at Danbury."
You've even revised the Establishment Clause, which reads, "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And you
obviously do not know what the word "respecting" means in the context
of the Establishment Clause. Jefferson and Madison and their
extensive writings on the subject could probably help you, but you
have been reading sleazy David Barton's phony Jefferson and Madison
quotes.
Bob LeChevalier
>On May 8, 1:02 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiancehttp://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
>> [excerpt]
>>
>> Thursday, May 01 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
>> Edited by: Michael Hess
>>
>> The American Way
>>
>> BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing it
>> again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put to
>> rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
>> Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
>> Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>>
>
>No it doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about separation of
>Church and State. I looked; it isn't there. In fact, the
>Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no
>law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Congress has
>no authority to prohibit anyone from engaging in religious exercises,
>in public, in private, in prison, or even in Congress itself.
Congress has no authority (under the Establishment Clause) to
AUTHORIZE anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
itself. If the opening of Congress in such a way were spontaneous,
your point might be valid. But Congress operates by rules and its
rules are law within its own halls, and Congress shall make no law ...
>Free men are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
But the Congressmen aren't praying. Someone else leads the prayer.
And they would not be allowed to do so without Congressional
authorization.
>The Constitution, in the very same amendment, grants to all citizens
>of the United States the right "peaceably to assemble." That includes
>congressmen too. If Congressmen want to assemble and pray--or pray at
>their assembly--no authority in the United States can stop them. They
>have the constitutional right.
If they are assembling as citizens, on their own time, indeed. But in
the halls of Congress, they are assembling as part of the government.
>Now we all know that some people don't like that idea; they don't like
>people to pray.
Very few people give a damn whether someone else prays, as long as
they don't have to listen.
>Some opponents to prayer simply don't believe in the same God that Congressmen are praying to.
What God are Congressmen praying to?
>They are the people who twist the language of the First
>Amendment prohibiting Congress from interfering with religion into a
>prohibition against religion.
No. But officially practicing religion is interfering with religion
>Some sitting Judges are good at this;
>they hold that while Congress cannot prohibit prayer, the courts
>certainly can--and, ironically, they cite the First Amendment.
The courts cannot and do not prohibit prayer. They generally prohibit
the government (and those acting with the authority of government are
"the government") leading, instigating, or promoting prayer.
>The result: one insignificant troublemaker can ask any U.S. court to
>stop entire communities from exercising their Constitutional right to
>practice their religion
Communities have no religion. Individuals do.
>in their tax-paid public places like schools and meeting halls.
Actually not.
>And we have meddlesome people like the author
>Naman Crowe objecting to members of the Congress of the United States
>taking a few minutes to recite a short prayer
The members aren't doing so.
>We should set aside a day of prayer
No "we" shouldn't. YOU and I can do whatever we want. But the moment
you make it "we" then the government authority may not be part of the
"we".
>for those
>confused people who can't understand the plain language of the First
>Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Like you.
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
cpt banjo
> Now we all know that some people don't like that idea; they don't like
> people to pray. Some people think it foolish, futile, and
> bothersome.
And some people have serious misgivings about public prayer. Read
Matthew 6:6-7 sometimes.
snakehawk
> snakehawkwrote:
And as a secular entity, the United States has no authority to
interfere in the exercise of any religion, at any time, and in any
place. That includes the voluntary expressions of religious ideals
and rite in private assemblies, in public meetings, in schools, or
anywhere--even in Congress itself. The United States government has
no authority, moral or legal, to prohibit prayer anywhere.
The Constitution clearly states that all powers not granted in the
Constitution to the federal government are specifically reserved to
the states or to the people. The Constitution not only does not grant
any powers to the central government to regulate religion, it also
expressly denies any such power. Any action by the federal
authorities, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, to interfere
with the free exercise of religion at any level is unconstitutional.
That's what the First Amendment says.
thomas p.
"snakehawk" <snak...@mailandnews.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:288d289b-fd8d-4606...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The First Amendment does not say that, and you are not the authority who
gets to say what it means. In other words you are completely wrong.
snakehawk
> On May 8, 8:22 am,snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 1:02 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > > US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiancehttp://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
> > > [excerpt]
>
> > > Thursday, May 01 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
> > > Edited by: Michael Hess
>
> > > The American Way
>
> > > BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing it
> > > again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put to
> > > rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
> > > Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
> > > Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>
> > No it doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about separation of
> > Church and State. I looked; it isn't there. In fact, the
> > Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no
> > law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Congress has
> > no authority to prohibit anyone from engaging in religious exercises,
> > in public, in private, in prison, or even in Congress itself. Free men
> > are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
>
> Ah, but my grubby-fingered little revisionist, you should read the
> judicial gloss on the Establishment Clause and Jefferson's "Letter to
> the Baptists at Danbury."
>
Jefferson's use of the phrase "wall of separation between Church &
State" in a private letter does not, and cannot, change the meaning
of the plain language of the First Amendment. Your interpretation of
Jefferson's metaphor would mean that Congress is forbidden to apply
religious moral standards in enacting legislation--there exists a wall
which Congress must not breach. Any congressman who bases his vote on
religious teachings of morality and civility would be in violation of
the Constitution.
That's utter nonsense. If there is such a "wall," it contains a one-
way gate: Congress cannot influence religions, but religious moral
teachings can--and should--influence Congress. Our present Congress,
having relinquished their authority to declare war to a warmongering
president and funding years of random killings in the middle east,
would do well to reread the Ten Commandments.
> You've even revised the Establishment Clause, which reads, "Congress
> shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And you
> obviously do not know what the word "respecting" means in the context
> of the Establishment Clause.
Why don't you tell us what "respecting" meant at the time the
constitution was accepted by all the states. Then you can tell use
what the word "an" means. As I read the language, Congress can make
no laws respecting "an establishment of religion," i.e., a religious
establishment, any religious establishment, whether it's the Catholic
Church or David Koresh's cult.
But more important, the Amendment goes on to say Congress cannot make
laws respecting the free exercise of religion, whether it's the
Catholic Church or David Koresh's cult. Everyone keeps referring to
the "Establishment Clause," forgetting the "Free Exercise Clause."
Reading the clauses together, the meaning of the Amendment become
clear: the United States federal government has no authority over
religion--period.
Jefferson and Madison and their
> extensive writings on the subject could probably help you, but you
> have been reading sleazy David Barton's phony Jefferson and Madison
> quotes.
I suggest you try reading the First Amendment a few times and try to
cleanse your mind of opinions given by others. Instead of relying on
others, go right to the source. Read the Amendment and try to figure
it out for yourself.
Don Martin
>
> > US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiancehttp://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
> > [excerpt]
>
> > Thursday, May 01 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
> > Edited by: Michael Hess
>
> > The American Way
>
> > BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing it
> > again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put to
> > rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
> > Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
> > Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>
> No it doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about separation of
> Church and State. I looked; it isn't there. In fact, the
> Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no
> law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Congress has
> no authority to prohibit anyone from engaging in religious exercises,
> in public, in private, in prison, or even in Congress itself. Free men
> are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
Well, then, if there is no separation, it is high time those religious
bastards started paying for the free advertising on the currency and
in congress. Real estate taxes at the regular rate should cover it
nicely.
Thanks for the suggestion.
jl
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are contriving to give primary importance to the Free Exercise
Clause when the Establishment Clause provides the appropriate
guidance, that is, to prevent official prayers in Congress.
I don't know why Americans have put up with this bullshite for so
long, because official public prayers in Congress are clearly
unconstitutional.
I am a pastafarian. If Priests can waddle into Congress and pray,
then so can my pastafarian ministers.
snakehawk
> snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> Congress has no authority (under the Establishment Clause) to
> AUTHORIZE anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
> itself.
Congress also has no authority (under the Free Exercise Clause) to
PROHIBIT anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
itself.
If the opening of Congress in such a way were spontaneous,
> your point might be valid. But Congress operates by rules and its
> rules are law within its own halls, and Congress shall make no law ...
Congressional rules are not public laws applicable to the people.
Besides, there are no congressional rules prohibiting either
spontaneous or organized prayer--there can't be: it would be
unconstitutional. And if the majority under the rules of Congress
agree to open the session with a prayer, no United States entity has
the authority to prohibit it.
>
> >Free men are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
>
> But the Congressmen aren't praying. Someone else leads the prayer.
> And they would not be allowed to do so without Congressional
> authorization.
That is an issue of public order, not religion. But as long as
Congress, as a body, grants authorization for Congress, as a body. to
engage in a religious act, no one has the legal right to stop it.
>
> >The Constitution, in the very same amendment, grants to all citizens
> >of the United States the right "peaceably to assemble." That includes
> >congressmen too. If Congressmen want to assemble and pray--or pray at
> >their assembly--no authority in the United States can stop them. They
> >have the constitutional right.
>
> If they are assembling as citizens, on their own time, indeed. But in
> the halls of Congress, they are assembling as part of the government.
They are assembling as free men representing other free citizens.
They have the right to engage in religious acts as long as they abide
by those rules of order agreed to under the governing rules of
Congress. There can be no law which prohibits such conduct under the
plain language of the Constitution.
>
> >Now we all know that some people don't like that idea; they don't like
> >people to pray.
>
> Very few people give a damn whether someone else prays, as long as
> they don't have to listen.
The Constitution does not grant individuals or groups of individuals
the right to be free of the sound of prayer in their presence.
>
> >Some opponents to prayer simply don't believe in the same God that Congressmen are praying to.
>
> What God are Congressmen praying to?
>
> >They are the people who twist the language of the First
> >Amendment prohibiting Congress from interfering with religion into a
> >prohibition against religion.
>
> No. But officially practicing religion is interfering with religion
Not by any stretch of logic or common sense.
>
> >Some sitting Judges are good at this;
> >they hold that while Congress cannot prohibit prayer, the courts
> >certainly can--and, ironically, they cite the First Amendment.
>
> The courts cannot and do not prohibit prayer. They generally prohibit
> the government (and those acting with the authority of government are
> "the government") leading, instigating, or promoting prayer.
On what theory? There are no laws prohibiting government officials
from leading, instigating, or promoting prayer. There can't be. Such
a law would be unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause.
>
> >The result: one insignificant troublemaker can ask any U.S. court to
> >stop entire communities from exercising their Constitutional right to
> >practice their religion
>
> Communities have no religion. Individuals do.
Communities are made up of individuals. And if the individuals making
up the community want to assemble to pray, and want their community
leaders to lead their children in prayer, that's their constitutional
right to the free exercise of religion.
>
> >in their tax-paid public places like schools and meeting halls.
>
> Actually not.
>
> >And we have meddlesome people like the author
> >Naman Crowe objecting to members of the Congress of the United States
> >taking a few minutes to recite a short prayer
>
> The members aren't doing so.
Sure they are. It's the members who invite the religious cleric to
voice the prayer. Any member who doesn't want to join in can read a
book or something. No member is required to join in; but then no
member has the right to object to the orderly actions of the
majority.
>
> >We should set aside a day of prayer
>
> No "we" shouldn't. YOU and I can do whatever we want. But the moment
> you make it "we" then the government authority may not be part of the
> "we".
>
> >for those
> >confused people who can't understand the plain language of the First
> >Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
>
> Like you.
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org- Hide quoted text -
snakehawk
No one recites "official" prayers in Congress: there is no "official"
prayer. Congress has not and cannot designate an official prayer.
But it does not follow that Congress as a body cannot authorize a
minister to lead the Congress in a prayer. Congress, just like all
citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to the
free exercise of religion.
>
> I don't know why Americans have put up with this bullshite for so
> long, because official public prayers in Congress are clearly
> unconstitutional.
>
> I am a pastafarian. If Priests can waddle into Congress and pray,
> then so can my pastafarian ministers.
If Congress, as a body, grants authorization, your pastafarian
minister can sing a psalm to Congress. If not, then your pastafarian
minister can lead his congregation in prayer anywhere he likes as long
as he does not trespass or disturb the public order. That's his
constitutional right.
Lord Vetinari
news:288d289b-fd8d-4606...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
: And as a secular entity, the United States has no authority to
: interfere in the exercise of any religion, at any time, and in any
: place. That includes the voluntary expressions of religious ideals
: and rite in private assemblies, in public meetings, in schools, or
: anywhere--even in Congress itself. The United States government has
: no authority, moral or legal, to prohibit prayer anywhere.
:
: The Constitution clearly states that all powers not granted in the
: Constitution to the federal government are specifically reserved to
: the states or to the people. The Constitution not only does not grant
: any powers to the central government to regulate religion, it also
: expressly denies any such power. Any action by the federal
: authorities, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, to interfere
: with the free exercise of religion at any level is unconstitutional.
: That's what the First Amendment says.
Were you born this stupid, or did you have to work at it?
Lord Vetinari
[snip]
: Jefferson's use of the phrase "wall of separation between Church &
: State" in a private letter does not, and cannot, change the meaning
: of the plain language of the First Amendment. Your interpretation of
: Jefferson's metaphor would mean that Congress is forbidden to apply
: religious moral standards in enacting legislation--there exists a wall
: which Congress must not breach. Any congressman who bases his vote on
: religious teachings of morality and civility would be in violation of
: the Constitution.
:
: That's utter nonsense. If there is such a "wall," it contains a one-
: way gate: Congress cannot influence religions, but religious moral
: teachings can--and should--influence Congress. Our present Congress,
: having relinquished their authority to declare war to a warmongering
: president and funding years of random killings in the middle east,
: would do well to reread the Ten Commandments.
It is your misfortune to be dishonest in all of your dealings with other
humans. It is to your own detriment that you feel the need to spread your
filth across usenet, and to your family's shame. The fact is, Congress _is_
forbidden to apply "religious moral standards", oxymoron that it is, and
moron that you are.
If you ever decide to learn about morality & ethics, you'll do well to ask
an atheist to help you on your journey.
snakehawk
> "snakehawk" <snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
You should look up the definitions of terms before you use them.
Atheists seem to labor under some delusion that rules of conduct and
civility toward strangers and aliens are somehow ingrained in the
human DNA, and if humankind could just rid itself of those silly
religious preachings about goodness, charity, and neighborly love,
orderly civilization would miraculously appear. Most atheists aren't
even aware that just about every position they cling to relating to
human affairs are rooted in some religious teachings that have been
handed down for generations.
No law exists forbidding members of Congress to apply "religious moral
standards." Our lawmakers are bound to apply the generally accepted
standards of morality in framing legislation. And virtually all of
the standards of morality recognized in the United States are rooted
in Christianity.
Bob LeChevalier
>> You are contriving to give primary importance to the Free Exercise
>> Clause when the Establishment Clause provides the appropriate
>> guidance, that is, to prevent official prayers in Congress.
>
>No one recites "official" prayers in Congress: there is no "official"
>prayer. Congress has not and cannot designate an official prayer.
>But it does not follow that Congress as a body cannot authorize a
>minister to lead the Congress in a prayer. Congress, just like all
>citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to the
>free exercise of religion.
Congress is not a citizen; it is a part of the Federal government.
Congress has no Constitutional rights. It has specific constitutional
powers enumerated in the Constitution. None of those powers includes
authorizing a minister to lead the Congress in a prayer.
Individual Congressmen have Constitutional rights. But the action of
Congress as a body is an action of the government, not of individuals
exercising their rights. The actions of individuals while
participating as part of that body is still an action of the
government.
>> I don't know why Americans have put up with this bullshite for so
>> long, because official public prayers in Congress are clearly
>> unconstitutional.
>>
>> I am a pastafarian. If Priests can waddle into Congress and pray,
>> then so can my pastafarian ministers.
>
>If Congress, as a body, grants authorization,
Congress has no power to grant authorization to one religion and not
another. That would violate the no religious tests clause, as well as
not be an enumerated power of Congress.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On May 8, 7:42 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>
>> Congress has no authority (under the Establishment Clause) to
>> AUTHORIZE anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
>> itself.
>
>Congress also has no authority (under the Free Exercise Clause) to
>PROHIBIT anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
>itself.
Then Congress cannot stop the pastafarian from wandering onto the
Senate floor (or for that matter into George Bush's bedroom in the
White House) and singing hymns at any time of the day or night.
Your interpretation of the clause is thus shown to be ridiculous.
>If the opening of Congress in such a way were spontaneous,
>> your point might be valid. But Congress operates by rules and its
>> rules are law within its own halls, and Congress shall make no law ...
>
> Congressional rules are not public laws applicable to the people.
The Constitution doesn't forbid "public laws". It forbids "law".
>Besides, there are no congressional rules prohibiting either
>spontaneous or organized prayer--there can't be: it would be
>unconstitutional
But there are, since the pastafarian cannot go into the halls of
Congress singing hymns.
>And if the majority under the rules of Congress
>agree to open the session with a prayer, no United States entity has
>the authority to prohibit it.
"rules of Congress" = "law"
>> >Free men are entitled to pray as they please--even congressmen.
>>
>> But the Congressmen aren't praying. Someone else leads the prayer.
>> And they would not be allowed to do so without Congressional
>> authorization.
>
>That is an issue of public order, not religion. But as long as
>Congress, as a body, grants authorization
Congress has no power to grant such authorization.
>> >The Constitution, in the very same amendment, grants to all citizens
>> >of the United States the right "peaceably to assemble." That includes
>> >congressmen too. If Congressmen want to assemble and pray--or pray at
>> >their assembly--no authority in the United States can stop them. They
>> >have the constitutional right.
>>
>> If they are assembling as citizens, on their own time, indeed. But in
>> the halls of Congress, they are assembling as part of the government.
>
>They are assembling as free men representing other free citizens.
They are assembling as part of the Government in accordance with the
Constitution.
>They have the right to engage in religious acts
as individuals yes. As a governmental body, no.
>as long as they abide
>by those rules of order agreed to under the governing rules of
>Congress.
Those rules cannot include any religious tests. If they allow one
religious expression, then they must allow all, without constraint.
>> >Now we all know that some people don't like that idea; they don't like
>> >people to pray.
>>
>> Very few people give a damn whether someone else prays, as long as
>> they don't have to listen.
>
>The Constitution does not grant individuals or groups of individuals
>the right to be free of the sound of prayer in their presence.
But it does. I am free to walk away from you, or if I prefer, to
offer my own prayer at equal volume. The government cannot forbid me
from offering my own prayer at equal volume or it is engaging in the
regulation of free religious expression as well as applying a
religious test.
>> >Some opponents to prayer simply don't believe in the same God that Congressmen are praying to.
>>
>> What God are Congressmen praying to?
>>
>> >They are the people who twist the language of the First
>> >Amendment prohibiting Congress from interfering with religion into a
>> >prohibition against religion.
>>
>> No. But officially practicing religion is interfering with religion
>
>Not by any stretch of logic or common sense.
The courts disagree with you. So does history.
>> >Some sitting Judges are good at this;
>> >they hold that while Congress cannot prohibit prayer, the courts
>> >certainly can--and, ironically, they cite the First Amendment.
>>
>> The courts cannot and do not prohibit prayer. They generally prohibit
>> the government (and those acting with the authority of government are
>> "the government") leading, instigating, or promoting prayer.
>
>On what theory? There are no laws prohibiting government officials
>from leading, instigating, or promoting prayer.
There are no laws permitting it either. On the job, they are part of
the government, and their official actions are restricted to what is
formally authorized.
>> >The result: one insignificant troublemaker can ask any U.S. court to
>> >stop entire communities from exercising their Constitutional right to
>> >practice their religion
>>
>> Communities have no religion. Individuals do.
>
>Communities are made up of individuals. And if the individuals making
>up the community want to assemble to pray, and want their community
>leaders to lead their children in prayer, that's their constitutional
>right to the free exercise of religion.
As long as they do so as individuals, fine. The moment that the word
"government" becomes involved, then they are not acting as private
citizens, but as the State (there are no "community" governments per
se, except as established by the states).
>> >And we have meddlesome people like the author
>> >Naman Crowe objecting to members of the Congress of the United States
>> >taking a few minutes to recite a short prayer
>>
>> The members aren't doing so.
>
>Sure they are. It's the members who invite the religious cleric to
>voice the prayer.
No, it is not "the members". It is "the Congress" as a body.
>Any member who doesn't want to join in can read a
>book or something. No member is required to join in; but then no
>member has the right to object to the orderly actions of the
>majority.
Of course they do. Would you deny them their free religious
expression right to outshout everyone else's free religious
expression?
lojbab
snakehawk
> snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >> You are contriving to give primary importance to the Free Exercise
> >> Clause when the Establishment Clause provides the appropriate
> >> guidance, that is, to prevent official prayers in Congress.
>
> >No one recites "official" prayers in Congress: there is no "official"
> >prayer. Congress has not and cannot designate an official prayer.
> >But it does not follow that Congress as a body cannot authorize a
> >minister to lead the Congress in a prayer. Congress, just like all
> >citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to the
> >free exercise of religion.
>
> Congress is not a citizen; it is a part of the Federal government.
>
> Congress has no Constitutional rights. It has specific constitutional
> powers enumerated in the Constitution. None of those powers includes
> authorizing a minister to lead the Congress in a prayer.
No where does the Constitution prohibit the members of Congress from
voluntarily joining together as a body in prayer or from inviting
recognized religious leaders to lead the prayer. There is no such
prohibition in the Constitution. The First Amendment states only that
Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to") a
religious establishment--that's it.
>
> Individual Congressmen have Constitutional rights. But the action of
> Congress as a body is an action of the government, not of individuals
> exercising their rights. The actions of individuals while
> participating as part of that body is still an action of the
> government.
>
> >> I don't know why Americans have put up with this bullshite for so
> >> long, because official public prayers in Congress are clearly
> >> unconstitutional.
>
> >> I am a pastafarian. If Priests can waddle into Congress and pray,
> >> then so can my pastafarian ministers.
>
> >If Congress, as a body, grants authorization,
>
> Congress has no power to grant authorization to one religion and not
> another. That would violate the no religious tests clause, as well as
> not be an enumerated power of Congress.
Congress is not required to grant authorizations to all religions at
the same time, anymore than it must allow all members and witnesses to
speak at the same time. And there is no "religious test clause" in
the Constitution.
snakehawk
> snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >On May 8, 7:42 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >>snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >> Congress has no authority (under the Establishment Clause) to
> >> AUTHORIZE anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
> >> itself.
>
> >Congress also has no authority (under the Free Exercise Clause) to
> >PROHIBIT anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
> >itself.
>
> Then Congress cannot stop the pastafarian from wandering onto the
> Senate floor (or for that matter into George Bush's bedroom in the
> White House) and singing hymns at any time of the day or night.
>
> Your interpretation of the clause is thus shown to be ridiculous.
If your interpretation is valid, then it must also apply to freedom of
speech. Certainly you don't question the right to free speech. So
you must feel that you have a constitutional right to enter George
Bush's bedroom and start speaking. Right? Whose interpretation is
ridiculous?
>
> >If the opening of Congress in such a way were spontaneous,
> >> your point might be valid. But Congress operates by rules and its
> >> rules are law within its own halls, and Congress shall make no law ...
>
> > Congressional rules are not public laws applicable to the people.
>
> The Constitution doesn't forbid "public laws". It forbids "law".
>
> >Besides, there are no congressional rules prohibiting either
> >spontaneous or organized prayer--there can't be: it would be
> >unconstitutional
>
> But there are, since the pastafarian cannot go into the halls of
> Congress singing hymns.
Sure they can--if Congress authorizes it. And no one would have any
grounds to object. Others might demand similar authorization at a
different and convenient time. But no religion has a constitutional
right to authorization, just as no individual has the right to object
to Congress allowing one citizen to speak before Congress but not
another.
The constitution contains no such constraints.
>
> >> >Now we all know that some people don't like that idea; they don't like
> >> >people to pray.
>
> >> Very few people give a damn whether someone else prays, as long as
> >> they don't have to listen.
>
> >The Constitution does not grant individuals or groups of individuals
> >the right to be free of the sound of prayer in their presence.
>
> But it does. I am free to walk away from you, or if I prefer, to
> offer my own prayer at equal volume. The government cannot forbid me
> from offering my own prayer at equal volume or it is engaging in the
> regulation of free religious expression as well as applying a
> religious test.
Utter and complete nonsense--the standard nonsense of the anarchists,
the disrupters of society. A constitutional right does not include
the right to interfere with another's exercise of a constitutional
right. The constitutional right to freedom of speech does not grant a
right to shout down another speaker, to harass the audience of the
speaker, to block the free flow of traffic, to crowd city streets, to
violate rules of order. In the same way, no individual or religious
group has the right to block any group from exercising their religious
freedom as a body or as an individual.
Bob LeChevalier
>On May 8, 3:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>> >> You are contriving to give primary importance to the Free Exercise
>> >> Clause when the Establishment Clause provides the appropriate
>> >> guidance, that is, to prevent official prayers in Congress.
>>
>> >No one recites "official" prayers in Congress: there is no "official"
>> >prayer. Congress has not and cannot designate an official prayer.
>> >But it does not follow that Congress as a body cannot authorize a
>> >minister to lead the Congress in a prayer. Congress, just like all
>> >citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to the
>> >free exercise of religion.
>>
>> Congress is not a citizen; it is a part of the Federal government.
>>
>> Congress has no Constitutional rights. It has specific constitutional
>> powers enumerated in the Constitution. None of those powers includes
>> authorizing a minister to lead the Congress in a prayer.
>
>No where does the Constitution prohibit the members of Congress from
>voluntarily joining together as a body in prayer or from inviting
>recognized religious leaders to lead the prayer.
Outside a session of Congress, nowhere. Inside a session of Congress,
in the Establishment clause and the religious test clause.
>The First Amendment states only that
>Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to") a
>religious establishment--that's it.
You are ignoring the religious test clause. If it were constitutional
for Congress to honor someone with the permission to lead a prayer,
then their religion could not be a factor and the pastafarian has as
much right as the fundie to lead the prayer.
>> >If Congress, as a body, grants authorization,
>>
>> Congress has no power to grant authorization to one religion and not
>> another. That would violate the no religious tests clause, as well as
>> not be an enumerated power of Congress.
>
>Congress is not required to grant authorizations to all religions at
>the same time,
Congress is not allowed to grant authorizations to any religions.
>And there is no "religious test clause" in the Constitution.
Article VI:
<but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Bob LeChevalier
>On May 8, 3:20 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>> >On May 8, 7:42 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >>snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Congress has no authority (under the Establishment Clause) to
>> >> AUTHORIZE anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
>> >> itself.
>>
>> >Congress also has no authority (under the Free Exercise Clause) to
>> >PROHIBIT anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
>> >itself.
>>
>> Then Congress cannot stop the pastafarian from wandering onto the
>> Senate floor (or for that matter into George Bush's bedroom in the
>> White House) and singing hymns at any time of the day or night.
>>
>> Your interpretation of the clause is thus shown to be ridiculous.
>
>If your interpretation is valid, then it must also apply to freedom of
>speech. Certainly you don't question the right to free speech. So
>you must feel that you have a constitutional right to enter George
>Bush's bedroom and start speaking. Right? Whose interpretation is
>ridiculous?
Therefore we must conclude that it is permissible to regulate both
speech and religious expression under some conditions.
The words used say that Congress cannot "abridge" freedom of speech,
and cannot "prohibit" free exercise of religion. Yet it can forbid
you to do either in George Bush's bedroom. Thus those two words
(which are different, so the rights involved may be different) must be
interpreted in a way that makes sense in real life.
>> >Besides, there are no congressional rules prohibiting either
>> >spontaneous or organized prayer--there can't be: it would be
>> >unconstitutional
>>
>> But there are, since the pastafarian cannot go into the halls of
>> Congress singing hymns.
>
>Sure they can--if Congress authorizes it.
Congress has no authority to authorize it.
>But no religion has a constitutional
>right to authorization, just as no individual has the right to object
Under free speech, I have the right to object to anything I want.
Furthermore I have the right to petition the government for redress of
my grievance.
>> Those rules cannot include any religious tests. If they allow one
>> religious expression, then they must allow all, without constraint.
>
>The constitution contains no such constraints.
Article VI, as quoted.
>> >The Constitution does not grant individuals or groups of individuals
>> >the right to be free of the sound of prayer in their presence.
>>
>> But it does. I am free to walk away from you, or if I prefer, to
>> offer my own prayer at equal volume. The government cannot forbid me
>> from offering my own prayer at equal volume or it is engaging in the
>> regulation of free religious expression as well as applying a
>> religious test.
>
>Utter and complete nonsense--the standard nonsense of the anarchists,
>the disrupters of society. A constitutional right does not include
>the right to interfere with another's exercise of a constitutional
>right.
Therefore you can have no constitutional right to stop the pastafarian
from praying in YOUR bedroom.
>The constitutional right to freedom of speech does not grant a
>right to shout down another speaker,
It doesn't? Is there a volume clause in the first amendment?
>to harass the audience of the speaker, to block the free flow of traffic, to crowd city streets, to
>violate rules of order.
A rule of order that abridges free speech is out of order.
Leo Marx
>
"no religious tests clause"
This is another one that the jesus freaks have pushed aside.
Politicians regularly pander to the jesus freaks for their votes. Obama,
McCain, Romney and others have had to, and continue to justify their
ignorant religious beliefs to get elected.
Wealthy, white, christian men seem to be the only acceptable candidates
for the jesus freaks.
JAM
Lord Vetinari
On May 8, 1:22 pm, "Lord Vetinari" <vetin...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> "snakehawk" <snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> It is your misfortune to be dishonest in all of your dealings with other
> humans. It is to your own detriment that you feel the need to spread your
> filth across usenet, and to your family's shame. The fact is, Congress
> _is_
> forbidden to apply "religious moral standards", oxymoron that it is, and
> moron that you are.
>
> If you ever decide to learn about morality & ethics, you'll do well to ask
> an atheist to help you on your journey.
You should look up the definitions of terms before you use them.
****
Speak for yourself, dingleberry.
****
Atheists seem to labor under some delusion that rules of conduct and
civility toward strangers and aliens are somehow ingrained in the
human DNA, and if humankind could just rid itself of those silly
religious preachings about goodness, charity, and neighborly love,
orderly civilization would miraculously appear.
****
Your lack of interest in science is none of our concern.
****
Most atheists aren't
even aware that just about every position they cling to relating to
human affairs are rooted in some religious teachings that have been
handed down for generations.
****
Back to your tired old lies. How about this one? Fuck OFF and Die
Screaming, cretin.
****
No law exists forbidding members of Congress to apply "religious moral
standards." Our lawmakers are bound to apply the generally accepted
standards of morality in framing legislation. And virtually all of
the standards of morality recognized in the United States are rooted
in Christianity.
****
Your kind are uninterested in the legality of the nasty things you do. You
never bother to (more like, are incapable of) researching any of your
assertations before depositing your muck in inappropriate places (such as
alt.atheism). You lie like a really fucked up rug.
****
cpt banjo
> And virtually all of the standards of morality recognized in the United
> States are rooted in Christianity.
Utter nonsense. Prohibitions against murder and stealing, for
example, predate not only Christianity, but also the Ten
Commandments. Look up the Code of Hammurabi (circa 1760 B.C.) and
learn something.
Josh Rosenbluth
> snakehawk <snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >On May 8, 3:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >> >> You are contriving to give primary importance to the Free Exercise
> >> >> Clause when the Establishment Clause provides the appropriate
> >> >> guidance, that is, to prevent official prayers in Congress.
>
> >> >No one recites "official" prayers in Congress: there is no "official"
> >> >prayer. Congress has not and cannot designate an official prayer.
> >> >But it does not follow that Congress as a body cannot authorize a
> >> >minister to lead the Congress in a prayer. Congress, just like all
> >> >citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to the
> >> >free exercise of religion.
>
> >> Congress is not a citizen; it is a part of the Federal government.
>
> >> Congress has no Constitutional rights. It has specific constitutional
> >> powers enumerated in the Constitution. None of those powers includes
> >> authorizing a minister to lead the Congress in a prayer.
>
> >No where does the Constitution prohibit the members of Congress from
> >voluntarily joining together as a body in prayer or from inviting
> >recognized religious leaders to lead the prayer.
>
> Outside a session of Congress, nowhere. Inside a session of Congress,
> in the Establishment clause and the religious test clause.
SCOTUS strognly implied otherwise in Marsh.
> >The First Amendment states only that
> >Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to") a
> >religious establishment--that's it.
That interpretation of "respecting" makes no sense either in the
historical context of the amendment or common sense.
> You are ignoring the religious test clause. If it were constitutional
> for Congress to honor someone with the permission to lead a prayer,
> then their religion could not be a factor and the pastafarian has as
> much right as the fundie to lead the prayer.
The religious test clause covers qualification for office, not
qualification to lead Congress in prayer. If there is no
Establishment Clause violation when a pastor opens a session of
Congress, then there is almost certainly no Constituional violation.
Josh Rosenbluth
Bob LeChevalier
>> >No where does the Constitution prohibit the members of Congress from
>> >voluntarily joining together as a body in prayer or from inviting
>> >recognized religious leaders to lead the prayer.
>>
>> Outside a session of Congress, nowhere. Inside a session of Congress,
>> in the Establishment clause and the religious test clause.
>
>SCOTUS strognly implied otherwise in Marsh.
I can't remember whether I read the decision, but my impression was
that the court is unwilling to regulate Congress's internal operation
directly due to separation of powers
>> You are ignoring the religious test clause. If it were constitutional
>> for Congress to honor someone with the permission to lead a prayer,
>> then their religion could not be a factor and the pastafarian has as
>> much right as the fundie to lead the prayer.
>
>The religious test clause covers qualification for office,
Not merely that. It also covers a "public trust" which is any granted
right or entitlement.
>not qualification to lead Congress in prayer.
If one person and not others are granted the entitlement to lead a
prayer then that certainly is a public trust.
Lord Calvert
Actually, it was suggested quite some time ago.
"Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil
government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the
indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in
perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the
chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as
well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent
accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not
sufficiently engaged attention in the US." - James Madison
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
buckeye
>:|On May 9, 9:51 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>:|> snakehawk <snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>:|> >On May 8, 3:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>:|> >> snakehawk<snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>:|> >> >> You are contriving to give primary importance to the Free Exercise
>:|> >> >> Clause when the Establishment Clause provides the appropriate
>:|> >> >> guidance, that is, to prevent official prayers in Congress.
>:|>
>:|> >> >No one recites "official" prayers in Congress: there is no "official"
>:|> >> >prayer. Congress has not and cannot designate an official prayer.
>:|> >> >But it does not follow that Congress as a body cannot authorize a
>:|> >> >minister to lead the Congress in a prayer. Congress, just like all
>:|> >> >citizens of the United States, has the Constitutional right to the
>:|> >> >free exercise of religion.
>:|>
>:|> >> Congress is not a citizen; it is a part of the Federal government.
>:|>
>:|> >> Congress has no Constitutional rights. It has specific constitutional
>:|> >> powers enumerated in the Constitution. None of those powers includes
>:|> >> authorizing a minister to lead the Congress in a prayer.
>:|>
>:|> >No where does the Constitution prohibit the members of Congress from
>:|> >voluntarily joining together as a body in prayer or from inviting
>:|> >recognized religious leaders to lead the prayer.
>:|>
>:|> Outside a session of Congress, nowhere. Inside a session of Congress,
>:|> in the Establishment clause and the religious test clause.
>:|
>:|SCOTUS strognly implied otherwise in Marsh.
>:|
Marsh was a "political" decision. It is seriously flawed. Hopefully in time
Newdow or another will be instrumental in getting it overturned
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
>:|> >The First Amendment states only that
>:|> >Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to") a
>:|> >religious establishment--that's it.
>:|
>:|That interpretation of "respecting" makes no sense either in the
>:|historical context of the amendment or common sense.
I would be curious to see what you base the above on.
What historical context?
Whose and what common sense?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
buckeye
>:|On May 8, 1:02 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|> US Government Sponsored Prayers and The Pledge of Allegiancehttp://bbsnews.net/article.php/20080501163949996
>:|> [excerpt]
>:|>
>:|> Thursday, May 01 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
>:|> Edited by: Michael Hess
>:|>
>:|> The American Way
>:|>
>:|> BBSNews 2008-05-01 -- By Naman Crowe. I've sung this song but I'll sing it
>:|> again. Let's get real. Let's start looking to the day when we can put to
>:|> rest the tired tradition of opening Congress with the Daily Prayer and
>:|> Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that they go counter to our
>:|> Constitution which requires a separation of Church and State.
>:|>
>:|
>:|No it doesn't. The Constitution says nothing about separation of
>:|Church and State. I looked; it isn't there.
That is because you don't know what you're looking for.
The princole of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution. It was further reinforced with the addition of the religious
clases in the BORs
buckeye
>:|The religious test clause covers qualification for office, not
>:|qualification to lead Congress in prayer.
The religious test clause is the separation clause.
buckeye
>:|
>:|Why don't you tell us what "respecting" meant at the time the
>:|constitution was accepted by all the states. Then you can tell use
>:|what the word "an" means. As I read the language, Congress can make
>:|no laws respecting "an establishment of religion," i.e., a religious
>:|establishment, any religious establishment, whether it's the Catholic
>:|Church or David Koresh's cult.
Ok
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/ea050382a385c0f1?hl=en&&q=respecting+an+establishment
http://tinyurl.com/6kyx2b
Paul Revere
Jan 22 2004, 4:06 am
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.society.liberalism
From: z...@nowhere.com (Paul Revere)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:06:47 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jan 22 2004 4:06 am
Subject: Re: Biblical Roots of American Liberty
In article <100rcec2prl3...@corp.supernews.com>, "dpr" <why> wrote:
>http://www.libertyhaven.com/noneoftheabove/religionandchristians/bibl....
>html
>Biblical Roots of American Liberty
The Separation of Church and State
Jesus of Nazareth: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the
Lord that which is the Lord's".
noting that nothing in the establishment clause appears to limit its
applicability to national establishments of religion (or, alternatively, to
establishments of a national religion). On the contrary, the words
"establishment" and "religion" are left unmodified, as we would expect if
they were intended broadly. Similarly, the clause doesn't distinguish
between preferential and non-preferential establishments; accomodationists
create this distinction without one word of grounding in the text. Rather,
as pointed out by legal scholar Douglas Laycock, the version of the
establishment clause adopted by the First Congress "is one of the broadest
versions considered by either House:"
It forbids not only establishments, but also any law respecting or relating
to an establishment. Most importantly, it forbids any law respecting an
establishment of "religion." It does not say "a religion," "a national
religion," "one sect or society," or "any particular denomination of
religion." It is religion generically that may not be established
("Nonpreferential Aid to Religion: A False Claim about Original Intent,"
William and Mary Law Review, vol. 27, 1986, p. 881).
Conversely, the free exercise clause does contain limiting language,
although accomodationists don't read this clause narrowly. To illustrate
this narrowness, compare the free exercise and free speech clauses:
· Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
· Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.
As noted by Constitutional scholar Leonard Levy:
The framers of the amendment deliberately used different verbs in the
freedom of religion and freedom of the press clauses....If the framers
meant what they said and said what they meant, then Congress may abridge
the free exercise of religion so long as Congress does not prohibit it.
(The Establishment Clause,pp. 118)
The word "respecting:"
The establishment clause does more than ban the federal government from
establishing religion; it bars even laws respecting establishment. This
language is far more consistent with the broad reading of the clause than
it is with any version of accomodationism. To quote again from Levy:
The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a
religion or create an establishment of religion. It says Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Whether "respecting"
connotes honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make
no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion
but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of
creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional. The entire
nonpreferentialist argument reduces to the proposition that, although a law
preferring one religion over others would be unconstitutional, government
aid to all without preference to any would be constitutional. But if
government cannot pass a law on the subject of an establishment of
religion, whether the aid is to all without preference or to only one makes
no difference. A law of either kind is a law on a forbidden subject and
therefore unconstitutional. (The Establishment Clause, p. 118)
The word "thereof:"
An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause is that it looks back to
the establishment clause for its definition of "religion;" the
establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting the
establishment of "religion," while the free exercise clause says that
Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise "thereof." Logically, the word
"thereof" must have the same content as the object to which it refers.
Accordingly, what counts as "religion" for one clause must count as
"religion" for the other. Critically, the free exercise clause makes no
sense unless the word "religion" is read to encompass more than a church,
denomination, or sect. On the contrary, it is common ground that the state
abridges free exercise when it interferes with only small parts of an
individual's religious practice. The state, for example, abridges free
exercise when it tells student they cannot pray during school, even if it
allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith.
Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it can't erect a nativity scene
on its front lawn even if the church is otherwise left free to use its
property as it wishes. Private prayer and nativity scenes are protected by
the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices
constitute religions in and of themselves. If prayer and nativity scenes
count as "religion" for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must
also count as "religion" for the purposes of the establishment clause. Just
as the state abridges religion when it tells a student she cannot pray, so
to does it establish religion when it requires prayer to be said in the
schools. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a church it
can't set up a nativity scene, so to does it establish religion when it
sets up a nativity scene on government land at public expense. The state
does not cross the line to establishment only when it goes to the trouble
and expense of setting up a state church; it crosses that line when it sets
up any religious practice that constitutes "religion" for the purposes of
free exercise.
Legislative History of the Religion Clauses
If, as accomodationists want to argue, the purpose of the First Amendment
was simply to bar the establishment of a state church, then one would
expect to see evidence of this intent in the framing of the Amendment. In
fact, the framers rejected versions of the First Amendment that would have
done nothing more than bar the establishment of a state church. Rather, the
framers adopted what is arguably the broadest of the proposed versions.
(All information in this section is taken, unless otherwise indicated, from
Leonard Levy, "The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment," in James E. Wood, ed., Religion and the State, pp. 43-83.
For other discussions of the framing of the Amendment, see Thomas Curry,
The First Freedoms, ch. 8, and Douglas Laycock, "'Nonpreferential' Aid to
Religion: A False Claim about Original Intent," William and Mary Law
Review, vol. 27, pp. 875-923. Additionally, please consult our online
collection of all the mentions of the religion clauses recorded in the
Annals of Congress and the Senate Journal for the first Congress.)
The House debates:
James Madison introduced the first version of the Amendment in the House of
Representatives in 1789. The version read as follows: "The civil rights of
none shall be abridged on the account of religious belief, nor shall any
national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of
conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed." A House
subcommittee immediately edited out the word "national" from Madison's
proposal. A variety of additional versions were proposed and debated; none
of these versions contained the word "national," or can be construed to bar
only the establishment of a national religion. After further debate, the
House approved the following, clearly broader, amendment: "Congress shall
make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof,
or to infringe the rights of conscience." The first two thirds of the
proposal are similar to our present version of the First Amendment; nothing
in the proposal seems independently to authorize Congress to aid religion
in any way.
The Senate debates
The House amendment went to the Senate in August. On September 3 the Senate
took up three alternatives to the House language. The wording of these
versions were as follows:
· Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or
society in preference to others.
· Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of
conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.
· Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination
of religion in preference to another.
None of these versions passed muster. Instead, the Senate approved the
following, much broader, language: "Congress shall make no law establishing
religion." Six days later the Senate returned to the Amendment for the
final time and approved the following: "Congress shall make no law
establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the
free exercise of religion." The Senate, in other words, rejected three
versions of the First Amendment that would have codified the
accomodationist position (i.e., the barring of a national church, and
little else) in favor of a version that, while not as broad as the House
proposal, was no longer narrowly focused on the establishment of a "sect,"
"society," or "denomination."
The conference committe debates:
Given the approval of different versions of the Bill of Rights by the House
and Senate, a conference committee was created to resolve differences. The
House members of the committee (headed by Madison) flatly refused to accept
the Senate version of the religion Amendment, thereby "indicating that the
House would not be satisfied with merely a ban on preference of one sect or
religion over others" (Levy, "The Original Meaning of the Establishment
Clause," p. 60). The Senate conferees then abandoned the Senate proposal,
and the current version of the Amendment was adopted.
The history of the framing of the First Amendment, in other words, gives
little support to the accomodationist position. The House never considered
a version of the Amendment that codified the accomodationist position. The
Senate did consider such versions, but rejected them. In their place, the
Senate approved a more broadly drawn Amendment that barred the
establishment of articles of faith and modes of worship without reference
to religious denominations. The final version of the Amendment was even
more broadly drawn than the House version in that it barred not only an
establishment of religion, but even laws respecting the establishment of
religion (i.e., wording that further guaranteed that the federal government
could not interfere with the religious affairs of the states). Clearly,
Congress intended the First Amendment to do more than simply bar the
establishment of a state church.
http://members.tripod.com/%7Ecandst/tnppage/basic3a.htm
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
To the above let me add the following information:
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY &
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology.
Establishment, Part I
http://candst.tripod.com/est01.html
In any discussion it is always wise to define terms. When a discussion is
historical in nature, those terms must be defined and understood as the
people of the period used them.
One excellent tool to use in creating that understanding is the Oxford
English Dictionary. Not only does the Oxford English Dictionary list all
the possible definitions of any given term, it also cites literary
references demonstrating how the term was actually used by writers of
different periods beginning with the earliest known usage of the term.
Another excellent tool is The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology.
This handy resource provides a short history of what language a term
originally came from and when its changing usages occurred.
To being our discussion of Establishment as it pertains to religious
freedom, let's look at some definitions of terms as found in these two
references:
Establish v. about 1380 Establishen, to fix, settle, set up;
borrowed from Old French Establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire
make stable, from Stabilis STABLE Steady; Establishment n. 1481, a settled
arrangement, earlier, property, income (before 1480) Formed from English
establish + -ment. The phrase the Establishment, meaning the established
church is first recorded in English in 1731.
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. The Origins of American
English Words, Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins Publishers, (1995) p 253
Respect n. Probably about 1380. Respecte relation, reference,
regard, borrowed from Old French Respect, and directly from Latin Respectus
(genitive respectus, regard; literally, act of looking back at one, from
respect-, past participle stem of respecere look back at, regard, consider
(re- back + specere look at). — v. 1548, to regard, consider, take into
account, probably from the noun reinforced by middle French respecter look
back, delay, respect, and Latin Respectare frequentative form of respicere
look back at, regard
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. The Origins of American
English Words, Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins, (1995) p 657
ing a suffix meaning action, result, product, materials, etc.
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. The Origins of American
English Words, Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins, (1995) p 387
an meaning not, meaning to, toward, before, meaning being or
belonging to.
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. The Origins of American
English Words, Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins, (1995) p 24
Religion probably before 1200, religion, a religious order or
community.
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. The Origins of American
English Words, Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins, (1995) p 650
Religion
***********************************************************************
http://candst.tripod.com/bthot-lr.htm
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
Written by Susan Batte, Esq.
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refers
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant only
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is not
implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th amendment
applies the establishment clause against states
********************************************************************
"Congress (which now means any level of government) shall make no law
RESPECTING (touching, helping, supporting touching upon, touching, aiding,
hindering, applying to, have to do with, etc) an ESTABLISHMENT
(institution) of RELIGION (any religious sect, society, denomination,
religion), . . . "
The use of public monies, the taxing of individuals to support religion was
considered a form of religious establishment at the time of the founding of
this nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Hamilton defined establishment of religion as the government
support and protection of religion.
"Remarks on the Quebec Bill," in Hamilton Papers, 1:169-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/02.html#1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==========================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word "establishment" had at least two meanings at the time the
First Amendment was adopted and has those meanings today. One was a
technical reference to monopoly status, such as the Roman Catholic
church had for many years in Spain; or to government patronage and
control of a church, such as the Church of England; or government
regulation and financial support of one or more churches, as in some
colonies and states in early America.
The other meaning of the word "establishment" is institution. The two
meanings are used interchangeably today as they were then. A religious
establishment is an institution of religion. Madison spoke of "the
establishment of the chaplainship" in Congress.' He vetoed a bill to
give a parcel of land to a Baptist church with the statement that
"Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.".
Jefferson, in drafting a "Bill for the Establishment of District
Colleges and University" and in the Regulations of the University of
Virginia, provided that the students "will be free and expected to
attend religious worship at the establishment of their respective
sects."
(Religious Liberty And The Secular State, the Constitutional Context,
by John Swomley, pages 48-49)
***********************************************************************
RELIGION An Overview
Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning
religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of
religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be
established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' The language was altered
in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion,
or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of
conscience.'' In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall
make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' It was in the conference
committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language
was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting '' phraseology.
Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion
clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced
him, is fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the
others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who
voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html
*********************************************************
"Congress shall make no law RESPECTING (touching, helping, supporting
touching upon, touching, aiding, hindering, applying to, have to do with,
etc) an ESTABLISHMENT (institution) of RELIGION (any religious sect,
society, denomination, religion), . . . "
It is important to bear in mind, this is not one way. Religion was not
given any seat at the table of government. No trappings, no office, no say,
no authority., not was government given any seat at the table of religion.
**************************************************************
LEONARD W. LEVY
* Second, the nonpreferentialists stress the "a" in Madison's
recommended amendment without considering that it did not pass the House.
The amendment as adopted bans any law "respecting the establishment of
religion." It does not refer to 'a religion" or "a national religion." The
reference is to religion in general. The nonpreferendalist argument is
founded on a discarded proposal rather than the constitutional text.
Nevertheless, Madison had an interpretation of "national religion," as we
shall see, that undoes the nonpreferentialist argument.
Third, "the" is not "generic"; it is specific. Contrary to Robert
Cord, Daniel Dreisbach, and the others, the employment of "the" instead of
"an" as the article preceding "establishment of religion" would not have
broadened the establishment clause. Fourth, "the" can be as singular as "a"
or "an." But those are quibbles.
A more important objection to the nonpreferentialist emphasis on
the definite article in the establishment clause derives from the attempt
to construe it literally or strictly. That which is inherently ambiguous
cannot be strictly construed. Worse still, strict construction of the First
Amendment, if ever taken seriously, would lead to the destrucdon of
basic rights. Strict construction often leads to narrow-mindedness.
Consider the exact language of the amendment: "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."
The framers of the amendment deliberately used different verbs in the
freedom of religion and freedom of the press clauses. That is a matter
of considerably greater semantic importance than the difference between
"an" and "the" in the establishment clause. Ifthe framers meant what they
said and said what they meant, then Congress may abridge the free exercise
of religion so long as Congress does not Prohibit it. The point is that
contrary to Rehnquist and company, the principles embodied in the First
Amendment's clauses, not some misunderstanding based upon a grammarian's
niceties, command our constitutional respect.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, by Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, (1994) pp 117-118
*************************************************************
* The still more important fact is that the type of article used in
the establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not
say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment
of religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment
of religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the
clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject The ban is not
just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that
allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be
unconstitutional.
The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, Leonard W.
Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina Press,
(1994) p. 118
******************************************************************
" The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of
religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that
government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it is
best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as
well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some
of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a close
relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people
should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers.
The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed
this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was
the only one of these New England states that ratified the First Amendment.
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and
Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people
believed that the government should support religion. In all the other
ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But
whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in
government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is
that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to
legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power
either."
(The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, By Leonard W
Levy, page 146-147)
************************************************************
He [Madison] included chaplains for Congress, military and naval chaplains,
and presidential proclamations "recommending fasts & thanksgivings" as
examples "of a national religion. 24 Rather than let these examples, which
went beyond "the landmarks of power," have the effect of legitimate
precedents, he said it was better to apply to them "the legal aphorism of
de minimis non curat lex [the law does not
bother with trifles] ."25
Thus, the proposition that Madison meant merely a national church or no
preference in the support of religion is groundless, as foolish perhaps as
his proposition that the provision of military chaplains was like a
national religion. The point, however, is that to Madison "a national
religion" broadly covered as much as even the most trifling matters. Chief
Justice Rehnquist built most of his opinion favoring the constitutionality
of nonpreferential government aid to religion on the baseless reading he
gave to "national religion," without considering of that Madison believed
that military chaplains or a fast day constituted a national religion .26
Rehnquist merely read his own values into "national religion" (as did
Madison). The views that Madison expressed in 1789 on establishments of
religion conformed generally to his views ,whether he thought in terms of
a general assessment, a religiousestablislhment, or a national religion. In
each instance he wanted
"perfect separation" 27 between government and religion.
24. 18. Elizabeth Fleet, ed., "Madison's Detached Memoranda,"' William and
Mary.Quarterly 3 (1946)18. Elizabeth Fleet, ed., "Madison's Detached
Memoranda,"' William and
Mary.Quarterly 3 (1946) pp. 558-6o; Madison's emphasis.
25. Ibid., p. 559.
26. Wallace v. jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 91-114 (1985).
27. Thomas Jefferson to Edward I.ivingston, July 10, 1822, in Writings of
Madison, 9:100.
Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, Second Edition, Revised (University of North Carolina Press,
1994), 123.
*************************************************************
ANSON PHELPS STOKES
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950) page
527)
************************************************************
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
*****************************************************************
THOMAS J. CURRY
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, nine
(counting Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and
churches should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to
religion constituted an establishment of religion and violated its free
exercise.(78) . . .
. . . It meant at least this: that each citizen had a right to the free
exercise of his or her religion as long as it did not "break out into overt
acts against peace and order." Further, the people of almost every state
that ratified the First Amendment believed that religion should be
maintained and supported voluntarily. They saw government attempts to
organize and regulate such support as a usurpation of power, as a violation
of liberty of conscience and free exercise of religion, and as falling
within the scope of what they termed an establishment of religion.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment. Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986) pp 202 - 222)
*****************************************************************
1771
In 1771 Thomas B. Chandler, an Anglican minister in New Jersey
involved in a heated dispute with Boston Congregationalist minister Charles
Chauncy, wrote that if Chauncy were going to continue to change the meaning
of the word "establishment," he ought to "publish a Glossary, wherein the
singularities of his Phraseology are carefully explained."' Given the usage
of the word in colonial America, Chandler's suggestion was eminently
practical. The ambiguities of "establishment" in the colonies stemmed from
such peculiarly American situations as that in New York, where the minority
Anglicans claimed to be the establishment, or in New England, where
Congregationalists -- Dissenters within the Empire -- in fact constituted
the establishedchurch.
In England "establishment" clearly referred to the Anglican Church,
officially approved and supported by the government, which excluded
non-Anglicans, who probably constituted less than to per cent of the
population, from positions of power, privilege, and social influence. In
America the constant need for more settlers made such exclusivity
unachievable.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment.Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986) pp 105 - 107)
***********************************************************
Edmund Randolph of Virginia pointed out that the multiplicity of sects
would prevent "the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the
rest.". Patrick Henry, insisting on the need for an amendment on religion,
stated that "no particular sect or society ought to be favored or
established, by law, in preference to others."16 p. 197
In Connecticut, Oliver Ellsworth, replying to criticisms of the
Constitution, pointed out that Americans enjoyed full religious liberty
unlike other countries, where "one religion" was "established by law." At
his state's Convention, he stated that given the prevalence of knowledge
and liberty, the United States would never "be disposed to establish one
religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. "22
pp. 197-98
This description of establishment presents a paradox to the modem
historian. By emphasizing the "exclusive" favoring of "one particular
'sect," Americans appeared to draw a careful distinction between such an
exclusive establishment and a non-exclusive establishment or favoring of
several or all sects. However, during the revolutionary period, the only
serious Church-State conflicts had to do not with e exclusive state
preference for a single religion, but with proposals for non-preferential
state support of many religious groups. This issue gave rise to bitter
struggles in New England, in Maryland, and in Virginia where Madison led
the opposition. p. 198
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment. Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986)
**************************************
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
beliefs, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full
and equal rights of conscience in any manner or in any respect be
infringed."
(Civil rights, establishment, rights of conscience, broad word
establishment used)
Not accepted
"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed."
(Establishment and conscience, broad word establishment used)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no laws touching religion , or infringing the rights
of conscience."
(Establishment and conscience, broad word establishment used)
not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free
exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
(Establishment, free exercise, conscience, broad word establishment used)
not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(Establishment, free exercise, conscience, broad word establishment used)
not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in
preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed"
(Establishment of a preference, conscience, narrow non preference use of
establishment)
not accepted
"Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience, or
establishing any religious sect or society."
(establishment of a preference, conscience, narrow non preference use of
establishment)
not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of
religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(preference establishment, free exercise, conscience, narrow use of non
preference reference to establishment)
not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof."
(Establishment, free exercise, back to broad use of establishment)
not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of
worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
(establishing preference, free exercise, back to narrow non preference use
of the word establishment)
not accepted
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
(establishment, free exercise, back to broad)
accepted.
What can be said with any degree of certainty?
We do know for sure that it was to prevent the later use of the "necessary
and proper" wording from being used as a doorway to make laws regarding
religion. We know that because Madison mentions that.
We do know that it was to prevent a sects, denominations, religions from
combining and establishing religions, forcing others to go along with the
program. We know that again because Madison mentions it.
We know the obvious, that is it was meant to prevent the government from
establishing religion, a religion, a sect, a denomination as the "official"
religion of the nation. However, that might be less obvious if it is taken
into account that Congress was made up of members from all the states (well
maybe not all N C and R I had not ratified the Constitution yet, and while
they did eventually do so and did eventually send people to Congress I
think that during the first session of the first congress neither of those
states had people in congress). There was a mixture of religious beliefs
which would have made it very difficult for any one sect, denomination etc
to gain enough support to allow for the passage of laws making it the
"official" religion. So that is just one factor to take into account.
We also know that Congress was prevented from making an law RESPECTING an
establishment of religion. We know that because those words were eventually
chosen to be used.
We know that several non preferential proposals were made and all lost out
to the more broad, less defined word establishment, but even that word did
have meaning that applied in this country.
The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the First
Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.
*******************************************************************
PROF. JOHN SWOMELY
The First Amendment clause, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion," means what it
says. The word "respecting" means concerning or touching
upon, or in relation to, or with regard to.The word "establishment"
had at least two meanings at the time the First Amendment was
adopted and has those meanings today. One was a technical
reference to monopoly status, such as the Roman Catholic
church had for many years in Spain; or to government patronage and
control of a church, such as the Church of England; or government
regulation and financial support of one or more churches, as in some
colonies and states in early America.
The other meaning of the word "establishment" is institution. The two
meanings are used interchangeably today as they were then. A religious
establishment is an institution of religion. Madison spoke of "the
establishment of the chaplainship" in Congress.' He vetoed a bill to
give a parcel of land to a Baptist church with the statement that
"Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.".
Jefferson, in drafting a "Bill for the Establishment of District
Colleges and University" and in the Regulations of the University of
Virginia, provided that the students "will be free and expected to
attend religious worship at the establishment of their respective
sects." Whether either or both of these
definitions apply, it is clear that the amendment does not say
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion," but does
say "no law respecting an establishment of religion." It there-
fore cannot be construed as authorising Congress to support
religious institutions.
It would be illogical to suppose that an amendment expressly designed to
prohibit a power never given to Congress in the Constitution should be
construed as creating the authority to enact laws benefitting religion
financially. Yet this is precisely what contemporary proponents of aid to
churches are trying to do. The U.S. Catholic Conference (USCC), as
indicated in an earlier chapter, filed in 1983 a "friend of the court"
brief in the Supreme Court with respect to Mueller v. Allen in an effort to
reinterpret the Establishment Clause as an authorization of financial
benefits for churches. Among the arguments in that brief are the following:
(1) "The phrase 'respecting an establishment' cannot mean concerning or
touching upon religion. Indeed that was the terminology of Livermore's
proposal which was eventually rejected." Actually, the Livermore motion was
only temporarily replaced by another because it triumphed in the final
vote; the phrase "touching upon" was replaced by the word "respecting,"
which means the same thing. It is reasonable to suppose that Fisher Ames's
motion that temporarily replaced Livermore's "Congress shall make no law
establishing religion" was intended to make sure that there was a reference
to establishment in the motion. The Ames and Livermore motions were united
in the final wording in the phrase "respecting an establishment of
religion."
(2) The USCC brief also says: "The language of the clause does not concern
itself with religion in general, but with the particular problem of an
establishment of religion. There was no concern expressed during the August
15 debate that Congress might enact a law beneficial to religion or
religious institutions."15 This argument overlooks the fact that the entire
debate was about establishments of religion and the further fact that there
were no establishments of religion in the United States or the colonies
apart from laws intending to provide financial and other benefits to
religion and religious institutions.
(3) The third argument of the USCC brief is that the word establishment
really means preferment. It said: "Nothing in the House and Senate
proceedings suggests that the thrust of the compromise differs in any
material degree from the final House and Senate versions. It was directed
against the preferment or establishment of religion." Actually, there are
crucial differences between the final product and the House and Senate
versions. One crucial difference is the use of the word "respecting." A
second difference is that the final Senate version dealt only with
"articles of faith or a mode of worship," whereas an establishment of
religion also includes religious education, church finances, and medical,
charitable, and other enterprises of churches.
(Religious Liberty And The Secular State, the Constitutional Context,
by John Swomley, pages 49-51)
*******************************************************
"In contemporary America the only church that has steadily sought
substantial aid for its institutions is the Roman Catholic Church.
It is the Bishops rather than the laity that make such decisions through
the U.S. Catholic Conference (USCC). The USCC filed an AMICUS brief in the
MUELLER v ALLEN case in 1983 in an effort to reverse 'no aid to religion'
decisions of the Supreme Court. The brief indicated that the Supreme Court,
beginning with the EVERSON decision in 1947, relied too heavily on
'Virginia disestablishment history' and that the meaning of the religion
clause cannot be derived solely from the experience of any one colonial
group or locale' it proposed instead 'a sharp focus on the great diversity
of religious practice among the states.' however, that brief's discussion
of diversity focused on matters of ecclesiastical detail, such as 'assent
to the doctrine of the Trinity' and the exclusion of 'ministers from civic
office.'
The USCC brief said that 'the great number of people who ratified the First
Amendment in the states did not share a church-state tradition in common
with Virginia or each other.' That brief was mistaken. the common
church-state tradition ca be summarized as follows:
(1) Nine of the original 13 states had a colonial practice of established
churches financed by public tax funds.
(2) The revolution against establishment in all nine colonies was begun and
continued by protest against the support of religion.
(3) In single establishment colonies, an effort was made to make public
support of the established church tolerable by including other
denominations in the establishment through the device of multiple
establishments.
(4) six of the states at the time of the Constitutional Convention had non
preferential aid to religion in the form of multiple establishments.
(5) prior to the ratification of the first Amendment four states- North
Carolina in 1776, New York in 1777, Virginia in 1779, and South Carolina in
1790, ended their establishments of religion, making a total of eight out
of the thirteen that had no taxation for religious purposes. Maryland,
which in 1776 adopted a constitutional provision for multiple
establishments but never implemented it, would bring the total to nine
states that were not providing public funds for religious purposes.
(6) At the time the First Amendment was adopted, the major uniform
establishment practice remaining in the states was that of non-preferential
aid to churches.
The above summary revels a common church-state tradition for most of the
thirteen states, although they vary on details of doctrinal emphasis. it
also shows the Virginia history is not unique, because it was one of the
nine colonies with established churches (in colonial times), one of the
nine where there was significant protest against taxation for religious
purposes, and one of the four that disestablished before the First
Amendment was ratified. However, it was unique in the caliber of religious
liberty leadership of persons like Thomas jefferson, James Madison, George
Mason, and in the quality of their statements for religious liberty."
(RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND THE SECULAR STATE, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT, by John M Swomley pp 89, 90)
******************************************************
MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses were intended only to prevent
the establishment of a national church.
FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had
plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In
fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil rights
of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any
national religion be established...." This draft was rejected. Following
extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment today was
settled on.
The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First Amendment
to ban not only establishment of a single church but also "multiple
establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds many
religions on an equal basis.
A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment
is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the
Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives'
debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically
rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any
particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted
to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for
"non-preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that
government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally.
(The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that
would have permitted non-preferential support for religion.)
*********************************************************
The use of the word "establishment" in the First Amendment is
unique to constitutions of this period. No state constitution used this
particular term, preferring to make specific provisions which prohibited
tax monies for churches, discrimination against minority sects, and other
measures which might establish a church. The use of the vague term in the
Bill of Rights indicates the belief that the national government had no
power in these specific areas, so that a general prohibition towards
matters of religion was sufficient.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religion Under State Constitutions, John K. Wilson.
Journal Of Church and State, Volume 32, Autumn 1990, Number 4, pp 753-773.)
*********************************************************
[REHNQUIST]
and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the
first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of
establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he
episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American
Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828).
[REBUTTAL]
The first American dictionary to link "establishment" to a church
was Webster's 1828 edition, which was published almost forty years after
the First Amendment was drafted. Webster supplemented the sparser 1806
edition by adding the following definition: "The episcopal form of
religion, so called in England.
[Referring to this new 1828 definition, Justice Rehnquist, in support of
his argument that the word "establishment" "had a well-accepted meaning,"
ignored Webster's 1806 edition and wrongly stated that the 1828 edition was
"the first American dictionary." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 106
(1985) (Rehnquist, J. dissenting).]
The frequency of the usage "establishment-. without any reference to
religion, and the relative infrequency of its use in regard to religion,
certainly suggests that the word was not a term of art bearing a technical
definition.
The term "establishment," when applied to a religion, nevertheless
was controversial in the eighteenth century. An examination of several
disputes where the meaning of the term was debated suggests that by 1789
the word was more of a term of opprobrium than a description of any
particular church-state relationship.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A Standard for repair, The Establishment Clause,
Equality, and Natural Rights. By T. Jeremy Gunn. Garland Publishing, Inc.
N. Y. (1992) p. 71-73)
***********************************
The use of public monies, the taxing of individuals to support religion was
considered a form of religious establishment at the time of the founding of
this nation.
****************************************************************
buckeye
>:|
>:|And as a secular entity, the United States has no authority to
>:|interfere in the exercise of any religion, at any time, and in any
>:|place. That includes the voluntary expressions of religious ideals
>:|and rite in private assemblies, in public meetings, in schools, or
>:|anywhere--even in Congress itself. The United States government has
>:|no authority, moral or legal, to prohibit prayer anywhere.
The above isn't even close to being true.
Carte Blanc free exercise of religion has never existed in any of the
Colonies nor in any of the states of this country.
In various colonies people were banned from the colony, jailed or worse
for attempting to exercise their religion if that religion was different
from the established religion in that colony
The original state constitutions granted only a limited form of free
exercise of religion.
If such broke laws or was disruptive of the general good it was not
permitted.
The term prohibit does allow for restricting or limiting. A simple
example is a parent can and many do limit or restrict the programs their
kids watch on TV and the number of hours they can watch tv while not
prohibiting watching tv
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >No where does the Constitution prohibit the members of Congress from
> >> >voluntarily joining together as a body in prayer or from inviting
> >> >recognized religious leaders to lead the prayer.
>
> >> Outside a session of Congress, nowhere. Inside a session of Congress,
> >> in the Establishment clause and the religious test clause.
>
> >SCOTUS strognly implied otherwise in Marsh.
>
> I can't remember whether I read the decision, but my impression was
> that the court is unwilling to regulate Congress's internal operation
> directly due to separation of powers
The Court ruled the Nebraska Legislature may begin each of its
sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the state with the
legislature's approval. The same reasoning would apply to Congress.
> >> You are ignoring the religious test clause. If it were constitutional
> >> for Congress to honor someone with the permission to lead a prayer,
> >> then their religion could not be a factor and the pastafarian has as
> >> much right as the fundie to lead the prayer.
>
> >The religious test clause covers qualification for office,
>
> Not merely that. It also covers a "public trust" which is any granted
> right or entitlement.
Precedential citations, and in particular what constitutes a "public
trust".
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> >:|> >The First Amendment states only that
> >:|> >Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to") a
> >:|> >religious establishment--that's it.
> >:|
> >:|That interpretation of "respecting" makes no sense either in the
> >:|historical context of the amendment or common sense.
>
> I would be curious to see what you base the above on.
>
> What historical context?
> Whose and what common sense?
If "respecting" means "related to", then Congress (and by extension
the federal government) can not prevent the states from declaring a
religion - thus nullifying Everson (Everson is "related to"
religion). But of course, Madison wasn't worried about laws "related
to" religion, but rather laws that "honored" religion.
Josh Rosenbluth
buckeye
Everson was a accommodationist victory. It was decided under the "child
benefit theory."
The value of Everson was not in the ruling but rather in the rule of law
that was stated (but not used in the ruling), that it defined for the first
time in legal history the Establishment Clause.
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
Some at the time, and still do, claimed the above was dicta.
The USSC made quite clear in
MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
"This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax- established and
tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their
faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made
applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson
v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 . There we said: 'Neither a state nor the
Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one
religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. 6 Neither
can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church
against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing
religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No
tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form
they may adopt to teach or practice religion. 7 Neither a state nor [333
U.S. 203 , 211] the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church
and State." Id., at pages 15, 16 of 330 U.S., at page 511 of 67 S.Ct. The
majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from
the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First
Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of
separation between Church and State. They disagreed as to the facts shown
by the record and as to the proper application of the First Amendment's
language to those facts."
and
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
"In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303-304, we said:"
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states a
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. . . . Thus, the Amendment
embraces two concepts -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first
is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."
Later, we decided Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, and said this
at pages 330 U. S. 15 and 330 U. S. 16:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go
to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be
levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they
may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of
separation between church and State.'"
While there were strong dissents in the Everson case, they did not
challenge the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's coverage as
being too broad, but thought the Court was applying that interpretation too
narrowly to the facts of that case. Not long afterward, in Illinois ex rel.
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, we were urged to repudiate
as dicta the above-quoted Everson interpretation of the scope of the First
Amendment's coverage. We declined to do this, but instead strongly
reaffirmed what had been said in Everson, calling attention to the fact
that both the majority and the minority in Everson had agreed on the
principles declared in this part of the Everson opinion. And a concurring
opinion in McCollum, written by Mr. Justice Frankfurter and joined by the
other Everson dissenters, said this:
"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular
reach far more penetrating in the conduct of Government than merely to
forbid an 'established church.' . . . We renew our conviction that"
"we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that
complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state
and best for religion. [Footnote 8]"
that was not the case but was, in fact, black letter law, rule of law, etc
*****************************************************************************
The background to Everson was
JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states,
declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the feedom
of speech, or of the press ....'"
The above rules can easily fit under just about any definition of
"respecting" one wants to use.
From another thread to another person:
snakehawk <snakeh...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>:|
>:|Why don't you tell us what "respecting" meant at the time the
>:|constitution was accepted by all the states. Then you can tell use
>:|what the word "an" means. As I read the language, Congress can make
>:|no laws respecting "an establishment of religion," i.e., a religious
>:|establishment, any religious establishment, whether it's the Catholic
>:|Church or David Koresh's cult.
>:|
Ok
SEE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/2a593b14239de302
http://tinyurl.com/63322o
****************************************************************
I frequently read your legal replies to the likes of Franks, as well as
others others and usually enjoy them. However, nothing personal but I have
noted that we differ on the historical side of the topic at times. I have
so replied to you on that a few times.
So with regards to Madison, and "respecting" and so on I will go with my
own research and study of the past 14 years and with the documentaion and
scholars that you will find in the following:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/2a593b14239de302
http://tinyurl.com/63322o
I will be more than happy to discuss them or we can just agree to disagree
on this.