What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
buckeye
http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-founderchurchstate.shtml
Tom Peters
Introduction
In this section we look at the legal and historical basis for separating
church and state. We present our case under two main headings:
The legal basis for separation:
The Constitution: The argument for the separation of church and state
begins, not with the text of the First Amendment, but with the nature of
the Constitution to which those amendments are attached. In this section we
suggest that the Constitution, even in the absence of the First Amendment,
grants no ability to the federal government to aid religion. We present two
arguments to this effect: (1) that the principles of federalism, coupled
with the widespread distrust of the central authority among the states,
would have made it extremely unlikely that the states would grant to the
federal government any power over religion, and (2) there is no evidence of
such delegated power in the text of the Constitution.
* Federalism and state establishments
* Absence of delegated power
The Bill of Rights: In this section we present evidence suggesting that the
religion clauses of the First Amendment are meant to be taken broadly.
Again, we present two arguments: (1) there is no grammatical reason for
reading the establishment clauses narrowly, and (2) Congress rejected
versions of the First Amendment that would have instantiated the narrow
reading.
The historical basis of separation
Statements by the Framers: In this section we present evidence suggesting
that the framers believed in separating church and state.
Statements by the framers
Federalism and state establishments
Research and writing by Tom Peters
In this article we will first define federalism and then explain its
relevance to the debate over church/state separation.
Definition of Federalism:
Federalism is a mode of political organization that unites independent
states within a larger political framework while still allowing each state
to maintain its own political integrity (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994,
vol. 4, p. 712). While the distribution of power between states and the
federal authority will vary from system to system, all federal systems
preserve the ability of state governments to decide matters of local
importance without interference from the federal superstructure.
In the American system, for example, the states are considered to be the
source of political power; it is the states that call the federal
government into existence, and it is the states that have the right to
legislate on matters of local concern. Conversely, the federal government
enjoys delegated power, i.e., power that the states hand over to the
federal government for the purpose of dealing with issues of national
scope. Critically, the federal government is limited to these delegations
of power; in the absence of a delegation, the federal government has no
lawful ability to act. Our Constitution was set up this way to ameliorate
the general concern of the framers that a federal government would try to
expand its power at the expense of state autonomy.
Relevance to the debate
The issue of federalism points up an extraordinary historical improbability
that lies at the very center of the accomodationist position. Putting aside
such technical issues as the history of the establishment clause, the
grammar of the First Amendment, and the like, the accomodationists argument
requires us to believe that the states --who otherwise jealously guarded
their sovereign rights, and who were utterly suspicious of federal
authority--delegated to the federal government expansive power to interfere
with their internal policies on religion. We believe this argument is
implausible on it's face; moreover, it ignores the heated nature of the
struggle within states to work out their own policies over religious
establishments.
As even a cursory review of Colonial history suggests, battles over state
establishment were hard-fought and divisive; states would often struggle
for years to hit on a policy that preserved the peace in their often
religiously diverse populations. Nor was there any consistency to these
policies; at time of the federal Constitution some states had long
histories of religious freedom, others had what are commonly referred to as
multiple religious establishments, while others were in periods of
transition. Beyond this, the states had been exercising control over
spiritual matters for centuries; there was no felt need (and certainly no
precedent) for the states to look to a centralized authority to help them
organize their religious affairs. Hence, it is unlikely that the states
would have approved a Constitution that gave the federal government the
power to aid religion on a non-preferential basis; such aid would have
effectively compromised the ability of each state to work out a
church/state relationship that satisfied its own needs.
Historical examples:
Virginia: in 1786 Virginia enacted Jefferson's "Bill for the Establishment
of Religious Liberty." Virginia's enactment disestablished the Anglican
Church, outlawed all public assessments for religion, and placed the
various religious denominations on an equal legal footing. As documented by
historian Thomas Curry (The First Freedoms, pp. 134-138), the debate over
disestablishment was protracted and intense, and it turned on the general
feeling that requiring people to support religion against their will was a
violation of religious liberty. Given these facts, how likely is it that
the state of Virginia would--the very next year--turn around and support a
Constitution which granted the federal government the power to provide non-
preferential aid to religion? Non-preferential aid, by definition, requires
people to support religions with which they do not agree, precisely the
point at issue in the Virginia debate. It is doubtful, in other words, that
Virginians would have approved the Constitution if they understood it to do
what accomodationists say it did.
Massachusetts: in 1780 Massachusetts adopted a Constitution that reenforced
and extended that state's Protestant religious establishment. As Curry
notes (The First Freedoms, pp. 163 ff.), this Constitution required
Catholics to contribute to Protestant churches, and effectively barred
Catholics from public office (quite in keeping with the popular religious
sentiments of the time). How likely is it that Massachusetts would have
accepted a Constitution that would have allowed the Federal government to
aid the Catholic church as part of non-preferential distribution of funds?
Non-preferential aid, no matter how widely distributed, would have diverted
at least some funds to Catholicism. Again, we think this scenario highly
unlikely.
The same argument can be made with respect to any of the remaining states;
it is simply not plausible that the states, who had a vested interest in
maintaining their own religious policies (policies that had been formulated
with the state's religious history, attitudes, and temperament in mind)
would have ceded even a shred of power over religion to the federal
government. The suspicion with which states viewed federal authority is a
well documented finding of Constitutional history; to suggest that the
states made an exception in the case of religion--a subject that produced
impassioned debate whenever it was discussed in the colonies--is, in our
view, untenable.
No reason for granting power:
Our point is made stronger by noting that accomodationists have been unable
to suggest a plausible reason for supposing that the framers would have
granted the federal government power over religion in the first place. What
purpose would it serve to give the federal government to aid religion, even
non-preferentially? As even accomodationists note, religion was a matter of
disagreement among the states; establishment of a national church would
surely have torn the young nation apart. Would not have non-preferential
aid done the same? Aid to Baptists in Connecticut? Aid to any religion in a
state that had abolished establishment? Aid to Deists and Unitarians almost
anywhere? Would not this have caused many of the same problems the framers
sought to avoid by prohibiting the establishment of a single, national
religion? And why involve the federal government in aiding religion when
each state was perfectly capable of appropriating its own money for that
purpose if it so chose? Even in the absence of our knowledge of state
distrust of federal power, in other words, there is little reason to
suppose the framers would have considered giving the federal government
power to aid religion.
Our conclusion, then, is that the widespread distrust of federal power,
distrust that manifested itself in the creation of a federal system of
government, would make it unlikely that the states would grant power over
religion to a central authority. On the contrary, the states had a vested
interest in protecting their own church/state arrangements, and federal
power to aid non- preferentially would surely have disturbed these
arrangements. There is simply no good reason for thinking that the states
would have vested the federal government with power over issues that were
better handled at the state level.
Absence of delegated power
Research and writing by Tom Peters
Beyond the historical improbability that the states would have approved a
Constitution that delegated religious power to the federal government,
there is the issue of finding such a delegation in the text of the
Constitution. While scholars can point to delegations of federal power to,
eg., lay and collect taxes (Art. I, sec. 8), make treaties (Art. II, sec.
2), and adjudicate disputes between the several states (Art. III, sec. 2),
the Constitution is silent on matters of religion. The only exception to
this silence is a separationist one: Article VI, paragraph 3 specifies that
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States." If the framers had wanted the
federal government to have the power to aid religion, they would have made
that delegation of power explicit. Instead, the absence of delegated power
in the area of religion is both obvious and, given the importance of
religion in the colonies, striking.
Additionally, we note that it is not simply our opinion that the
Constitution delegates no power over religion. On the contrary, this was
the belief of both the framers of the Constitution as well as the ratifying
conventions in the several states. Below we document, first, that the
framers believed that the federal government was limited to delegated
powers and, second, that the framers did not believe the Constitution
delegated power over religion.
The limited nature of federal power:
The absence of delegated powers in certain critical areas of government was
an important selling point for the Constitution. James Madison, the primary
mover behind the First Amendment, for example sought to assuage the worries
of the anti-federalists that the central government would expand beyond its
Constitutional boundaries by arguing as follows:
* The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal
Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign
commerce;... the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all
the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,
liberties and prosperities of the people. (The Federalist, #45, emphasis
ours)
Similarly, Constitutional historian Leonard Levy notes that the limited
nature of the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution
was the primarily reason that the original Constitution did not contain a
bill of rights:
* The members of the [Constitutional] convention did not oppose
personal liberties; in the main they simply regarded a bill of rights as
superfluous. They reasoned that the new national government possess only
expressly enumerated powers, and no power had been granted to legislate on
any of the subjects that would be the concern of a bill of rights. Because
no such power existed, none could be exercised or abused, and therefore all
provisions against that possibility were unnecessary. Of the many
statements of the argument, the most widely publicized was that of Hamilton
in The Federalist where he concluded simply: "for why declare that things
shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should
it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no
power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (The Establishment
Clause, p. 82; emphasis ours).
No federal power over religion:
As Levy goes on to note, when the Constitution was submitted to the
original thirteen states for ratification, this argument was used
explicitly to defend the Constitution's lack of a guarantee of religious
freedom. Levy summarizes some of the more important of these instances as
follows:
* James Wilson of Pennsylvania, in response to the allegation that
there was no security for the right of conscience, asserted, "I ask the
honorable gentlemen, what part of this system puts it in the power of
Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack it is
idle to prepare the means of defense." Edmund Randolph of Virginia declared
that "no power is given expressly to Congress over religion" and added that
only powers "constitutionally given" could be exercised. Madison said,
"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle
with religion" Richard Dobbs Spaight of North Carolina maintained: "as to
the subject of religion...(n)o power is given to the general government to
interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be an
usurpation." Wilson, Randolph, Madison, and Spaight had attended the
Constitutional Convention. Their remarks show that Congress was powerless,
even in the absence of the First Amendment, to enact laws that benefited
one religion or church in particular or all of them equally and impartially
(The Establishment Clause, p. 83; emphasis in the original).
Nor was this understanding of the Constitution limited to those who
attended the Constitutional convention. Identical arguments were made by
such non-attenders as Issac Backus of Massachusetts, James Iredell and
Samuel Johnston of North Carolina, and Thomas Tucker of South Carolina (see
Levy's "The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment," in James Wood, ed., Religion and State, pp. 46-53).
There is particular irony in Backus' defense of the Constitution; Backus
was an ardent Baptist and a staunch opponent of religious establishment. If
anyone were to press for additional guarantees of religious liberty in the
Constitution it would have been Backus, but he declined to support any bill
of rights. Clearly, he did not believe the federal government had any
ability to establish religion.
Concludes Levy:
* The members of the Constitutional convention and Americans throughout
the states shared a widespread understanding that the new central
government would have no power whatever to legislate on the subject of
religion, either to aid one sect exclusively or to aid all equally. Many
contemporaries, especially in New England, believed that governments could
and should foster religion, or at least Protestant Christianity. All
agreed, however, that the matter pertained to the realm of state government
and that the federal government possessed no authority to meddle in
religious matters ("The Original Meaning," p. 53)
In summary, the framers believed that nothing in the Constitution that
would allow the federal government to legislate with respect to religion.
Rather, there was a widespread understanding that the states had delegated
to the federal government only limited powers, and the federal government
had no ability to go beyond them. Nothing in the text of the Constitution
suggests otherwise. Hence, the historical record makes untenable the
accomodationist conclusion that the federal government had the ability to
aid religion, even in the absence of the First Amendment.
The grammar of the establishment clause
As noted elsewhere in this site, much of the present controversy over
separation has to do with the interpretation of the religious clauses of
the First Amendment. In this section we present some grammatical reasons
for thinking that the First Amendment should be interpreted as a broad ban
on the power of government over religion. We will do this in two sections.
First, we will present several grammatical arguments in favor of the broad
interpretation of the First Amendment. Second, we will address the most
important grammatical arguments in favor of a narrow reading.
* Grammatical arguments in favor of a broad reading of the
establishment clause
Responses to grammatical arguments in favor of a narrow reading.
Legislative history of the religion clauses
Research and writing by Tom Peters
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.
Some accomodationist arguments:
In response to this evidence accomodationists sometimes argue that, since
Madison's original version of the First Amendment barred the establishment
of a "national" religion, and since the Senate debated language to this
effect, the House and Senate debates are evidence that Congress only wanted
a narrowly drawn amendment. But this gets the process of interpretation
backward; it makes the defeated versions of the amendment controlling over
the versions that passed! Nor do accomodationists apply this argument
consistently; several of the proposed versions contained language
guaranteeing the "rights of conscience," i.e., the right of people not to
be taxed to support religions with which they disagree. Does this not
indicate that the framers wanted to bar non-preferential taxation in favor
of religion? It does if one applies accomodationist logic consistently but,
for some odd reason, accomodationists rarely leap to this conclusion.
Another accomodationist response is to quote statements by anti-Federalists
(i.e., those who opposed the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights) to the effect that the proposed religion amendment still allowed
the federal government power to act in religious affairs. In particular,
when the proposed Bill of Rights came before the Virginia legislature for
ratification, a group of eight anti-Federalist state senators (none of whom
were framers of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and all of whom
opposed Jefferson's bill for religious freedom) argued that, even with the
religion amendment in place, the government could still tax people for the
general support of religion, and otherwise interfere with state
establishments. But this is to accept the deeply tainted opinions of the
opponents of the Constitution in favor of the statements of the framers
themselves. As Levy notes (The Establishment Clause, pp. 108-111), the
anti-Federalists were desperate to scrap the Constitution in favor of a
system that left state sovereignty intact; their strategy was to reinforce,
by any means at their disposal, the fear that the federal government was
nothing more than a monster in waiting. How better to do this than to
suggest the religion amendments left the monster free to pounce? One simply
cannot turn to statements like these--statements that have no counterpart
in any other state ratification debate, and which vest Congress with powers
that no one else at the time was able to see--as an authoritative
interpretation of the establishment clause. Levy's conclusion, we think, is
apt:
It is difficult to believe that those who rejected the establishment clause
understood it better than its framers, that the Anti-Federalists knew
better than Madison and his cohorts, and that those who supported
establishment of religion in Virginia revealed the criteria for
interpreting the limitation on Congress's powers.
***************************************************************
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
James Veverka wrote:
One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
distortions.
****************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
Tracey12
> What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
>
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://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]
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . 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)
> . . .
>
> One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
> by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
> distortions.
>
> ****************************************************************
> 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
>
> ****************************************************************
What is the point of posting a book?
The only questions you need to consider here are these:
1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
2. What was the point of view of our founding fathers regarding
government and the church?
3. Did our founding fathers say in the First Amendment that churches
should not get involved in government?
4. Or did our founding fathers say that government should not get
involved in the free exercise of churches?
5. Thus, who was being protected by the power of the First Amendment?
The state from the church, or the church from the state?
Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
beginning to see in America today.
thomas p.
"Tracey12" <tracey...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:84d1f4f1-f863-40b7...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 3, 8:40 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
>
> http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-founderchurchstate...
>
> Tom Peters
> Introduction
snip
Tracey12"
What is the point of posting a book?
The only questions you need to consider here are these:
1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
-----------------------------
thomas p
Irrelevant. It is quite clear that the state was to be neutral in relation
to any religion, and that is all that is meant by separation of church and
state.
--------------------------
Tracey12"
2. What was the point of view of our founding fathers regarding
government and the church?
3. Did our founding fathers say in the First Amendment that churches
should not get involved in government?
4. Or did our founding fathers say that government should not get
involved in the free exercise of churches?
5. Thus, who was being protected by the power of the First Amendment?
The state from the church, or the church from the state?
----------------------------
thomas p
What church? Even then there were very many different sects. Which one do
you claim was being protected? The dissenting ones were certainly protected
from the ones that were established before; that must be what you meant.
Tracey12"
Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
beginning to see in America today.
-----------------------------------
thomas p
How is the state harming any church?
buckeye
>:|On Sep 3, 8:40�am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|> What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
>:|>
>:|> http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-founderchurchstate...
>:|>
>:|> Tom Peters
>:|> Introduction
>:|
>:|What is the point of posting a book?
>:|
So you might have learned something. Based on what follows you sure
needed to learn something.
>:|The only questions you need to consider here are these:
What follows aren't valid questions, they are evidence that you don't know
much about history.
>:|
>:|1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
Yes as a matter of fact:
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
and
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
>:|
>:|2. What was the point of view of our founding fathers regarding
>:|government and the church?
The founders knew history, they knew the dangers caused by unions between
religion and government, church and state. Something you don't appear to
know much about. They separated the two.
>:|
>:|3. Did our founding fathers say in the First Amendment that churches
>:|should not get involved in government?
The principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution, The 1st Amendment didn't create church state separation it
only reinforced what was already there
>:|4. Or did our founding fathers say that government should not get
>:|involved in the free exercise of churches?
That tired old lame bullshit.
Separation is not a one way street. Government messing with religion is
not more or no less dangerous then religion messing with govt. There are
examples of abuses in either case through out history. The founders were
aware of this.
>:|
>:|5. Thus, who was being protected by the power of the First Amendment?
>:|The state from the church, or the church from the state?
Both
>:|
>:|Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
>:|from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
>:|beginning to see in America today.
In your mind perhaps but in reality either or creates harm.
Two principles are at work here freedom or and freedom from
polymer
<snippage>
> The only questions you need to consider here are these:
Actually, the only question one needs to consider is:
Is there any actual evidence of the existence of any gods.
Answer: No. Zero. Zilch. Butkus.
Once you have that, you just apply common sense as to
whether the government should be involved in bullcrap.
buckeye
>:|Tracey12 <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote in
>:|news:84d1f4f1-f863-40b7...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>:|
>:|>
>:|> What is the point of posting a book?
>:|>
>:|> The only questions you need to consider here are these:
>:|>
>:|> 1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
>:|>
>:|> 2. What was the point of view of our founding fathers regarding
>:|> government and the church?
>:|>
>:|> 3. Did our founding fathers say in the First Amendment that churches
>:|> should not get involved in government?
>:|>
>:|> 4. Or did our founding fathers say that government should not get
>:|> involved in the free exercise of churches?
>:|>
>:|> 5. Thus, who was being protected by the power of the First Amendment?
>:|> The state from the church, or the church from the state?
>:|>
>:|> Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
>:|> from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
>:|> beginning to see in America today.
>:|>
>:|
>:|And we always forget the 14th Amendment and so-called "selective
>:|incorporation". It does say "Congress" shall make no law.
>:|
The word Congress was used however, should you read the writings of Madison
you will see that all branches of government was meant. He also included
the 14th Article (Amendment) of 1789 that would apply parts of the other
Amendments against the States. It passed the House but was shot down in
the Senate, which figures since the Senate protected the states at that
time.
>:|Maybe some of the Founders might have been OK with state establishment of
>:|churches? A lot of legislation from the original Confederation government
>:|was religious in nature (most notably the Northwest Ordinance, which while
>:|setting up Ohio notes that religion and morality was the basis for
>:|education)
Oh Pleeeezzzzzzzz
The Northwest Ordinance is no more religious than a cook book. The
Northwest Ordinance was the model that established originally 5 states but
also served as the basis for something like 30+ states
Religion and morality was not the basis for education.
thomas p.
"Azz Pizz" <pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Xns9C7B8C3F7AB1Bp...@127.0.0.1...
> Tracey12 <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:84d1f4f1-f863-40b7...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>>
>> The only questions you need to consider here are these:
>>
>> 1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
>>
>> 2. What was the point of view of our founding fathers regarding
>> government and the church?
>>
>> 3. Did our founding fathers say in the First Amendment that churches
>> should not get involved in government?
>>
>> 4. Or did our founding fathers say that government should not get
>> involved in the free exercise of churches?
>>
>> 5. Thus, who was being protected by the power of the First Amendment?
>> The state from the church, or the church from the state?
>>
>> Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
>> from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
>> beginning to see in America today.
>>
>
> incorporation". It does say "Congress" shall make no law.
>
> churches? A lot of legislation from the original Confederation government
> was religious in nature (most notably the Northwest Ordinance, which while
> setting up Ohio notes that religion and morality was the basis for
> education)
The Confederation ceased to exist with the ratification of the Constitution,
which does not mention any god.
>
> --
> Azz Pizz Institute
> The OFFICIAL Verbal Diarrhea Think Tank (tm)
> Washington, DC
5147 Dead, 280 since 1/20/09
<pena...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>Tracey12 <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:84d1f4f1-f863-40b7...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> What is the point of posting a book?
>>
>> The only questions you need to consider here are these:
>>
>> 1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
>>
>> 2. What was the point of view of our founding fathers regarding
>> government and the church?
>>
>> 3. Did our founding fathers say in the First Amendment that churches
>> should not get involved in government?
>>
>> 4. Or did our founding fathers say that government should not get
>> involved in the free exercise of churches?
>>
>> 5. Thus, who was being protected by the power of the First Amendment?
>> The state from the church, or the church from the state?
>>
>> Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
>> from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
>> beginning to see in America today.
>>
>
>And we always forget the 14th Amendment and so-called "selective
>incorporation". It does say "Congress" shall make no law.
>
>Maybe some of the Founders might have been OK with state establishment of
>churches? A lot of legislation from the original Confederation government
>was religious in nature (most notably the Northwest Ordinance, which while
>setting up Ohio notes that religion and morality was the basis for
>education)
The language in Article Six would have put paid to that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of
the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall
be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office
or public trust under the United States.
Peter Franks
> "Tracey12" <tracey...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:84d1f4f1-f863-40b7...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 3, 8:40 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
>>
>> http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-founderchurchstate...
>>
>> Tom Peters
>> Introduction
>
> snip
>
>
> Tracey12"
> What is the point of posting a book?
>
> The only questions you need to consider here are these:
>
> 1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
> -----------------------------
>
> thomas p
>
> Irrelevant. It is quite clear that the state was to be neutral in relation
> to any religion, and that is all that is meant by separation of church and
> state.
Except that there is no legislative mention of 'state neutrality'. The
founders said Congress, and they meant Congress.
There is no 'separation of church and state' wrt our government. That
is a phrase attributed to a private citizen and has equal weight as
anything that you or I would say regarding Amendment I.
Peter Franks
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:4aa02547$0$56794$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk:
>>> Maybe some of the Founders might have been OK with state
>>> establishment of churches?
>
>> Constitution, which does not mention any god.
>>
>
> presidents, it never happened obviously.
>
> I'm sure there were a few who wanted to/didn't care about allowing
> established churches at the state level, especially given the "Congress"
> being specifically named until the 14th made the Bill of Rights slowly
> applicable to the states. ...
No such 'selective incorporation' of the amendments in general exists.
The Due Process clause of Amendment XIV doesn't apply to the
Establishment Clause.
thomas p.
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:h7plka$g1n$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> thomas p. wrote:
>> "Tracey12" <tracey...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:84d1f4f1-f863-40b7...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 3, 8:40 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
>>>
>>> http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-founderchurchstate...
>>>
>>> Tom Peters
>>> Introduction
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>> Tracey12"
>> What is the point of posting a book?
>>
>> The only questions you need to consider here are these:
>>
>> 1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> thomas p
>>
>> Irrelevant. It is quite clear that the state was to be neutral in
>> relation to any religion, and that is all that is meant by separation of
>> church and state.
>
> Except that there is no legislative mention of 'state neutrality'. The
> founders said Congress, and they meant Congress.
When I used the word state I meant the US government. On the other hand do
you really want the states to be able to establish a religion?
>
> There is no 'separation of church and state' wrt our government. That is
> a phrase attributed to a private citizen and has equal weight as anything
> that you or I would say regarding Amendment I.
I am glad you wrote that last sentence. Those whose words do have weight
have long since decided the issue; the US government and the various states
may not establish religion. In case after case the result has been the
same. I am glad that you agree with me.
thomas p.
However, as you say, our opinions do not matter. All levels of government
are forbidden by the Constitution to establish religion in any form. This
has been determined by those whose opinions do matter.
buckeye
>:|"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>:|news:4aa02547$0$56794$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk:
>:|
>:|>>
>:|>> Maybe some of the Founders might have been OK with state
>:|>> establishment of churches?
>:|
>:|>
>:|> The Confederation ceased to exist with the ratification of the
>:|> Constitution, which does not mention any god.
>:|>
>:|
>:|I was talking about their opinions. I know Hamilton wanted life terms for
>:|presidents, it never happened obviously.
>:|
>:|I'm sure there were a few who wanted to/didn't care about allowing
>:|established churches at the state level, especially given the "Congress"
>:|being specifically named until the 14th made the Bill of Rights slowly
>:|applicable to the states.
The word Congress was used however, should you read the writings of Madison
you will see that all branches of government was meant. He also included
the 14th Article (Amendment) of 1789 that would apply parts of the other
Amendments against the States. It passed the House but was shot down in
the Senate, which figures since the Senate protected the states at that
time.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/29eb74396f0b11fb?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://tinylink.com/?rveUbiGCnk
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>:|
>:|"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
>:|
>:|Note it specifically mentions Congress. They did that for a reason. Nothing
>:|about judges. Nothing about states. Nothing about local schools.
>:|
>:|Just Congress.
Actually if you read the writings of Madison you will see that Congress was
signaled out since it was at the time the most powerful but he makes it
cllear in his writings that govt was ment not just Congress.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/c229fa52b04c6827?hl=en&
http://tinylink.co.za/e717fb
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/29eb74396f0b11fb?hl=en&
http://tinylink.co.za/b5973a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/f8af31fc5529ffc4?hl=en&
http://tinylink.co.za/f9bbfe
Indirect connections
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/077aa216ebaca168?hl=en&
http://tinylink.co.za/7019c4
#######################################################
Madison also proposed the following:
*****************************************
IRONICALLY THE FIRST FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
On June 8, 1789 James Madison delivered his long awaited list of proposed
amendments to the House of Representatives. After several debates
scattered throughout the summer the following is a partial list of the
amendments that was passed by the House of Representative and sent on to
the Senate.
Note especially Article the Fourteenth. That article, passed by the
necessary number of votes called for selective incorporation against the
state some of the other Articles.
This particular article was defeated in the Senate after secret debate and
a secret vote. It must be remember at this particular point in time in
American History, the House of Representative represented "the people."
It's members were elected directly by the people. The Senate, on the
other hand, represented the states. It's members were selected by the state
legislatures.
It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen and that it
called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "BORs
package" against the states. It is interesting that it was passed by "the
people's" representatives, but defeated by the state's representatives. It
is very ironic that another Article also numbered fourteen was passed some
79 or so years later and that it would, in time be used to selectively
incorporate other Articles of the "BORs package" against the states.
****************************************************************
AUGUST 17, 1789-- FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments)
The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:
Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph,
insert 'No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the
freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in
criminal cases.'
Mr. TUCKER this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the
constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of
constitutions of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend,
to leave the state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with
them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too
much. I therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.
Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the
whole list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the
United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally
necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He
thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide
against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful
to the people.
Mr. LIVERMORE had no great objection to the sentiment, but he
thought it not well expressed. He wished to make it an affirmative
proposition; 'the equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of
the press, and the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, shall not be
infringed by any state.'
This transposition being agreed to, and MR. TUCKER'S motion being
rejected, the clause was adopted. (In the final wording of the amendments
that was sent to the Senate the transposition had not taken place. No
reason for that mistake is recorded.)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the
United States (Annals of Congress) August 17, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales,
published by Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp 749-756 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUST 24, 1789--FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments, references to
religion)
House Resolution and Articles of Amendment,
August 24, 1789
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATE In the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, 14th August, 1789,
RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, two thirds Of both Houses
deeming it necessary, That the following Articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three
fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes
as part of the said Constitution--Viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the
United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the
Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the
original Constitution.
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People
peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply co
the Government for a redress of grievances, shall nor be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the
best security of a free Scare, the right of the People to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person
ARTICLE THE FOURTEENTH.
No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor
the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Teste,
JOHN BECKLEY, CLERK
In Senate, August 25, 1789
Read and ordered to be printed for the
consideration of the Senate.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:: Creating the Bill of Rights, The Documentary Record
from the First Federal Congress, Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R.
Bowling, Charlene Bangs Bickford, The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore and London, 1991, pp 37-41
====================================================
Davej
> On Sep 3, 8:40 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
> >
> >http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-founderchurchstate...
>
> What is the point of posting a book?
And what is the point of quoting it all again?
> Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
> from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
> beginning to see in America today.
You should stop smoking so much dope. Many of the founding fathers had
fled religious persecution that was due to governments supporting a
particular religion. The clear desire was for a new government that
would never promote any one religion over another.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sep 3, 8:24�am, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 8:40�am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
>> >
>> >http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-founderchurchstate...
>>> [...]
>>
>> What is the point of posting a book?
>
>And what is the point of quoting it all again?
>
>> Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
>> from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
>> beginning to see in America today.
This is a paranoid lie. Nobody wants to "harm churches", just keep
their religion where it is appropriate and their noses out of
everybody else's business.
>You should stop smoking so much dope. Many of the founding fathers had
>fled religious persecution that was due to governments supporting a
>particular religion. The clear desire was for a new government that
>would never promote any one religion over another.
Besides which, if they wanted a "Christian nation" they would have
spelled it out in the onstitution.
Or is that too obvious for these dumbfucks?
Peter Franks
I want that option left to the states, as it was originally intended.
>> There is no 'separation of church and state' wrt our government. That is
>> a phrase attributed to a private citizen and has equal weight as anything
>> that you or I would say regarding Amendment I.
>
> I am glad you wrote that last sentence. Those whose words do have weight
> have long since decided the issue; the US government and the various states
> may not establish religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It says nothing about the US government, nor the various states.
The amendment applies to Congress, and only Congress.
> In case after case the result has been the
> same. I am glad that you agree with me.
That doesn't make it right.
Peter Franks
Determined without sound or justified basis. Their decisions and
opinions are wrong.
znuybv
> What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
>
>
> Tom Peters
> Introduction
>
> In this section we look at the legal and historical basis for separating
> church and state. We present our case under two main headings:
> The legal basis for separation:
>
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
This is all the Constitution says about religion.
All that you posted here was made up by people who have an axe to
grind.
znuybv
> >Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote in
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
This is all the Constitution says about religion.
All that was posted here was made up by people who have an axe to
grind.
legist
> Determined without sound or justified basis. Their decisions and
> opinions are wrong.
That's your opinion, which isn't the law. The opinions of the Supreme
Court, on the other hand, are.
thomas p.
You seem to forget that you are a private citizen and that your words do not
have weight in this matter.
>
>> In case after case the result has been the same. I am glad that you
>> agree with me.
>
> That doesn't make it right.
Actually it does. As you point out neither I or you determine what is
correct.
thomas p.
<Sci...@Science.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:07i2a5d73mj36hbou...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:49:16 +0200, "thomas p."
> <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> There is no 'separation of church and state' wrt our government. That
>>> is
>>> a phrase attributed to a private citizen and has equal weight as
>>> anything
>>> that you or I would say regarding Amendment I.
>>
>>I am glad you wrote that last sentence. Those whose words do have weight
>>have long since decided the issue;
>
> decisions---an established doctrine now.
>
Yes, that was my point.
thomas p.
In the opinion of a private citizen whose words have no weight.
znuybv
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:49:16 +0200, "thomas p."
>
>
> >> There is no 'separation of church and state' wrt our government. That is
> >> a phrase attributed to a private citizen and has equal weight as anything
> >> that you or I would say regarding Amendment I.
>
> >I am glad you wrote that last sentence. Those whose words do have weight
> >have long since decided the issue;
>
> decisions---an established doctrine now.
Did they uphold this law, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." ?
Peter Franks
You seem to forget that we are in a discussion, not deciding the
application to the body politic.
>>> In case after case the result has been the same. I am glad that you
>>> agree with me.
>> That doesn't make it right.
>
> Actually it does. As you point out neither I or you determine what is
> correct.
Really? Let's put your assertion to the test.
Suppose that case after case those that are in power find that 2+2=5.
Does that make it right? According to your model, yes. The foolishness
of this thought is apparent, as are those that cling to it.
Peter Franks
And can you explain the basis for that determination?
Peter Franks
That is correct.
That doesn't make their decisions any less wrong.
Would you care to try and explain what the sound and justified basis is?
Peter Franks
The do have weight, however they have little relevance to the law.
Regardless, their decisions and opinions are wrong, and I'm merely
pointing out the obvious.
5147 Dead, 280 since 1/20/09
Google "Lemon Test". The case it's named for spells it out.
--
Josh Rosenbluth
> thomas p. wrote:
>
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
>
> It says nothing about the US government, nor the various states.
>
> The amendment applies to Congress, and only Congress.
so. the executive branch can prohibit free exercise of religion, speech
and press?
legist
> Would you care to try and explain what the sound and justified basis is?
The same basis that the Court used in applying other protections of
the Bill of Rights to the States (e.g., freedom of speech and press
and freeexercise of religion) -- the idea that the 14th Amendment's
Due Process Clause prohibits any level of government from infringing
personal liberty in certain fundamental areas. Personally, were I
starting from scratch I might have used the Privileges and Immunities
Clause, but historically the Court decided not to.
Regarding the Establishment Clause, a good case could be made that the
Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from establishing a religion
or otherwise using its resources and power to promote a particular
belief. Such action discriminates on the basis of religious belief,
which is just as pernicious as doing so on the basis of race or
national origin. The classic case where this type of analysis might
have been used was Torcaso v. Watkins, where the Court invalidated a
Maryland state constitutional provision that stated, "[N]o religious
test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of
profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in
the existence of God . . . ." The Court based its decision on the
Free Exercise Clause, because that's what the plaintiff had argued (he
also argued that the no-religious-test clause of Article VI applied to
the States, but the Court declined to address this argument). But had
the plaintiff raised an equal protection claim, I can't see how the
Court could have failed to find a violation.
Peter Franks
I can't find any such delegated power in Article II, so no, it can't.
Peter Franks
"Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must
have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary
effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally,
the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with
religion"
as quoted from:
http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html
This test is clearly not the basis, as it assumes that "excessive
government entanglement with religion" is prohibited. Since this is the
crux of the argument, what is the basis for the application of the
Establishment Clause from "Congress" to "government"?
Josh Rosenbluth
can you find a delegated power that permits the executive branch to
respect an establishment of religion?
Peter Franks
> On Sep 4, 1:05 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Would you care to try and explain what the sound and justified basis is?
>
> The same basis that the Court used in applying other protections of
> the Bill of Rights to the States (e.g., freedom of speech and press
> and freeexercise of religion) -- the idea that the 14th Amendment's
> Due Process Clause prohibits any level of government from infringing
> personal liberty in certain fundamental areas. Personally, were I
> starting from scratch I might have used the Privileges and Immunities
> Clause, but historically the Court decided not to.
>
> Regarding the Establishment Clause, a good case could be made that the
> Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from establishing a religion
> or otherwise using its resources and power to promote a particular
Discrimination is not an aspect of Amendment XIV:
>>>
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
<<<
Peter Franks
No.
legist
> Discrimination is not an aspect of Amendment XIV:
Don't be dense. Every violation of equal protection involves some
sort of wrongful discimination by the government. Or perhaps you
think Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided?
There is absolutely no rational basis for a State to discriminate on
the basis of religion, and to do so clearly violates EP. But maybe
you think a State can become its own little theocracy. Let's see:
Would it be a denial of EP for a State to offer tax exemptions to
Christian churches and to deny them to other denominations?
Could a State, consistent with EP, spend tax money on Christian
schools but not on schools run by other denominations?
>
> - Show quoted text -
legist
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > so. the executive branch can prohibit free exercise of religion, speech
> > and press?
>
> I can't find any such delegated power in Article II, so no, it can't.
You didn't look very hard. As commander-in-chief of the army and
navy, what constitutional provision prevents the President from
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, speech, and press in the
armed forces if he deems it to be in the best interest of the military
to do so? What prevents the President from ordering that no black
person can ever be promoted beyond a certain rank?
Peter Franks
You don't understand the concept of delegated powers.
Peter Franks
> On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Discrimination is not an aspect of Amendment XIV:
>
>
> Don't be dense. Every violation of equal protection involves some
> sort of wrongful discimination
I said "discrimination", you said "wrongful discrimination"; the two
aren't equivalent.
Discrimination that compromises equal protection is prohibited per XIV,
other discrimination is acceptable per the law.
> by the government. Or perhaps you
> think Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided?
See above.
> There is absolutely no rational basis for a State to discriminate on
> the basis of religion, and to do so clearly violates EP. But maybe
> you think a State can become its own little theocracy. Let's see:
>
> Would it be a denial of EP for a State to offer tax exemptions to
> Christian churches and to deny them to other denominations?
Yes.
> Could a State, consistent with EP, spend tax money on Christian
> schools but not on schools run by other denominations?
No.
legist
A pitiful evasion. The President's delegated powers specifically
include the power of the commander-in-chief of the army and navy. You
just don't want to acknowledge the hole you have dug yourself into by
insisting that the restrictions of the First Amendment apply only to
Congress and not to any other federal department. Under this view
there is nothing that would prevent the President from doing any of
the things I mentioned, and it's pathetic that you're too
intellectually dishonest to admit it.
legist
Very good. Now can a State, consistent with EP, proclaim that [insert
your favorite religion here] is the Official Religion of the State?
Peter Franks
Wow, that was unexpected and inappropriate.
Since you didn't bother to understand my response, I'll spell it out here:
There is no "constitutional provision which prevents the President..."
from any of your hypotheticals. Conversely, there is no constitutional
provision which /authorizes/ any of those hypotheticals either, and
therefore they are prohibited by implication.
There is no hole, and I've dug nothing. Amendment I is clear and
precise in its application: "Congress".
Peter Franks
What does "Official Religion" mean? The specifics are relevant.
Josh Rosenbluth
So in effect by the absence of a delegated power, the first amendment
applies to the executive branch - and judicial too.
Jimbo
> On Sep 3, 8:40 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > What the Founders Believed About Separation of Church and State
>
> >http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-founderchurchstate...
>
> > Tom Peters
> > Introduction
>
> > church and state. We present our case under two main headings:
> > The legal basis for separation:
>
> > The Constitution: The argument for the separation of church and state
> > begins, not with the text of the First Amendment, but with the nature of
> > the Constitution to which those amendments are attached. In this section we
> > suggest that the Constitution, even in the absence of the First Amendment,
> > grants no ability to the federal government to aid religion. We present two
> > arguments to this effect: (1) that the principles of federalism, coupled
> > with the widespread distrust of the central authority among the states,
> > would have made it extremely unlikely that the states would grant to the
> > federal government any power over religion, and (2) there is no evidence of
> > such delegated power in the text of the Constitution.
>
> > * Federalism and state establishments
> > * Absence of delegated power
>
> > The Bill of Rights: In this section we present evidence suggesting that the
> > religion clauses of the First Amendment are meant to be taken broadly.
> > Again, we present two arguments: (1) there is no grammatical reason for
> > reading the establishment clauses narrowly, and (2) Congress rejected
> > versions of the First Amendment that would have instantiated the narrow
> > reading.
> > The historical basis of separation
>
> > Statements by the Framers: In this section we present evidence suggesting
> > that the framers believed in separating church and state.
>
> > Statements by the framers
> > Federalism and state establishments
> > Research and writing by Tom Peters
>
> > In this article we will first define federalism and then explain its
> > relevance to the debate over church/state separation.
> > Definition of Federalism:
>
> > Federalism is a mode of political organization that unites independent
> > states within a larger political framework while still allowing each state
> > to maintain its own political integrity (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994,
> > vol. 4, p. 712). While the distribution of power between states and the
> > federal authority will vary from system to system, all federal systems
> > preserve the ability of state governments to decide matters of local
> > importance without interference from the federal superstructure.
>
> > In the American system, for example, the states are considered to be the
> > source of political power; it is the states that call the federal
> > government into existence, and it is the states that have the right to
> > legislate on matters of local concern. Conversely, the federal government
> > enjoys delegated power, i.e., power that the states hand over to the
> > federal government for the purpose of dealing with issues of national
> > scope. Critically, the federal government is limited to these delegations
> > of power; in the absence of a delegation, the federal government has no
> > lawful ability to act. Our Constitution was set up this way to ameliorate
> > the general concern of the framers that a federal government would try to
> > expand its power at the expense of state autonomy.
> > Relevance to the debate
>
> > The issue of federalism points up an extraordinary historical improbability
> > that lies at the very center of the accomodationist position. Putting aside
> > such technical issues as the history of the establishment clause, the
> > grammar of the First Amendment, and the like, the accomodationists argument
> > requires us to believe that the states --who otherwise jealously guarded
> > their sovereign rights, and who were utterly suspicious of federal
> > authority--delegated to the federal government expansive power to interfere
> > with their internal policies on religion. We believe this argument is
> > implausible on it's face; moreover, it ignores the heated nature of the
> > struggle within states to work out their own policies over religious
> > establishments.
>
> > As even a cursory review of Colonial history suggests, battles over state
> > establishment were hard-fought and divisive; states would often struggle
> > for years to hit on a policy that preserved the peace in their often
> > religiously diverse populations. Nor was there any consistency to these
> > policies; at time of the federal Constitution some states had long
> > histories of religious freedom, others had what are commonly referred to as
> > multiple religious establishments, while others were in periods of
> > transition. Beyond this, the states had been exercising control over
> > spiritual matters for centuries; there was no felt need (and certainly no
> > precedent) for the states to look to a centralized authority to help them
> > organize their religious affairs. Hence, it is unlikely that the states
> > would have approved a Constitution that gave the federal government the
> > power to aid religion on a non-preferential basis; such aid would have
> > effectively compromised the ability of each state to work out a
> > church/state relationship that satisfied its own needs.
> > Historical examples:
>
> > Virginia: in 1786 Virginia enacted Jefferson's "Bill for the Establishment
> > of Religious Liberty." Virginia's enactment disestablished the Anglican
> > Church, outlawed all public assessments for religion, and placed the
> > various religious denominations on an equal legal footing. As documented by
> > historian Thomas Curry (The First Freedoms, pp. 134-138), the debate over
> > disestablishment was protracted and intense, and it turned on the general
> > feeling that requiring people to support religion against their will was a
> > violation of religious liberty. Given these facts, how likely is it that
> > the state of Virginia would--the very next year--turn around and support a
> > Constitution which granted the federal government the power to provide non-
> > preferential aid to religion? Non-preferential aid, by definition, requires
> > people to support religions with which they do not agree, precisely the
> > point at issue in the Virginia debate. It is doubtful, in other words, that
> > Virginians would have approved the Constitution if they understood it to do
> > what accomodationists say it did.
>
> > Massachusetts: in 1780 Massachusetts adopted a Constitution that reenforced
> > and extended that state's Protestant religious establishment. As Curry
> > notes (The First Freedoms, pp. 163 ff.), this Constitution required
> > Catholics to contribute to Protestant churches, and effectively barred
> > Catholics from public office (quite in keeping with the popular religious
> > sentiments of the time). How likely is it that Massachusetts would have
> > accepted a Constitution that would have allowed the Federal government to
> > aid the Catholic church as part of non-preferential distribution of funds?
> > Non-preferential aid, no matter how widely distributed, would have diverted
> > at least some funds to Catholicism. Again, we think this scenario highly
> > unlikely.
>
> > The same argument can be made with respect to any of the remaining states;
> > it is simply not plausible that the states, who had a vested interest in
> > maintaining their own religious policies (policies that had been formulated
> > with the state's religious history, attitudes, and temperament in mind)
> > would have ceded even a shred of power over religion to the federal
> > government. The suspicion with which states viewed federal authority is a
> > well documented finding of Constitutional history; to suggest that the
> > states made an exception in the case of religion--a subject that produced
> > impassioned debate whenever it was discussed in the colonies--is, in our
> > view, untenable.
> > No reason for granting power:
>
> > Our point is made stronger by noting that accomodationists have been unable
> > to suggest a plausible reason for supposing that the framers would have
> > granted the federal government power over religion in the first place. What
> > purpose would it serve to give the federal government to aid religion, even
> > non-preferentially? As even accomodationists note, religion was a matter of
> > disagreement among the states; establishment of a national church would
> > surely have torn the young nation apart. Would not have non-preferential
> > aid done the same? Aid to Baptists in Connecticut? Aid to any religion in a
> > state that had abolished establishment? Aid to Deists and Unitarians almost
> > anywhere? Would not this have caused many of the same problems the framers
> > sought to avoid by prohibiting the establishment of a single, national
> > religion? And why involve the federal government in aiding religion when
> > each state was perfectly capable of appropriating its own money for that
> > purpose if it so chose? Even in the absence of our knowledge of state
> > distrust of federal power, in other words, there is little reason to
> > suppose the framers would have considered giving the federal government
> > power to aid religion.
>
> > Our conclusion, then, is that the widespread distrust of federal power,
> > distrust that manifested itself in the creation of a federal system of
> > government, would make it unlikely that the states would grant power over
> > religion to a central authority. On the contrary, the states had a vested
> > interest in protecting their own church/state arrangements, and federal
> > power to aid non- preferentially would surely have disturbed these
> > arrangements. There is simply no good reason for thinking that the states
> > would have vested the federal government with power over issues that were
> > better handled at the state level.
> > Absence of delegated power
> > Research and writing by Tom Peters
>
> > Beyond the historical improbability that the states would have approved a
> > Constitution that delegated religious power to the federal government,
> > there is the issue of finding such a delegation in the text of the
> > Constitution. While scholars can point to delegations of federal power to,
> > eg., lay and collect taxes (Art. I, sec. 8), make treaties (Art. II, sec.
> > 2), and adjudicate disputes between the several states (Art. III, sec. 2),
> > the Constitution is silent on matters of religion. The only exception to
> > this silence is a separationist one: Article VI, paragraph 3 specifies that
> > "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
> > or public Trust under the United States." If the framers had wanted the
> > federal government to have the power to aid religion, they would have made
> > that delegation of power explicit. Instead, the absence of delegated power
> > in the area of religion is both obvious and, given the importance of
> > religion in the colonies, striking.
>
> > Additionally, we note that it is not simply our opinion that the
> > Constitution delegates no power over religion. On the contrary, this was
> > the belief of both the framers of the Constitution as well as the ratifying
> > conventions in the several states. Below we document, first, that the
> > framers believed that the federal government was limited to delegated
> > powers and, second, that the framers did not believe the Constitution
> > delegated power over religion.
> > The limited nature of federal power:
>
> > The absence of delegated powers in certain critical areas of government was
> > an important selling point for the Constitution. James Madison, the primary
> > mover behind the First Amendment, for example sought to assuage the worries
> > of the anti-federalists that the central government would expand beyond its
> > Constitutional boundaries by arguing as follows:
>
> > * The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal
> > Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
> > Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
> > principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign
> > commerce;... the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all
> > the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,
> > liberties and prosperities of the people. (The Federalist, #45, emphasis
> > ours)
>
> > Similarly, Constitutional historian Leonard Levy notes that the limited
> > nature of the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution
> > was the primarily reason that the original Constitution did not contain a
> > bill of rights:
>
> > * The members of the [Constitutional] convention did not oppose
> > personal liberties; in the main they simply regarded a bill of rights as
> > superfluous. They reasoned that the new national government possess only
> > expressly enumerated powers, and no power had been granted to legislate on
> > any of the subjects that would be the concern of a bill of rights. Because
> > no such power existed, none could be exercised or abused, and therefore all
> > provisions against that possibility were unnecessary. Of the many
> > statements of the argument, the most widely publicized was that of Hamilton
> > in The Federalist where he concluded simply: "for why declare that things
> > shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should
> > it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no
> > power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (The Establishment
> > Clause, p. 82; emphasis ours).
>
> > No federal power over religion:
>
> > As Levy goes on to note, when the Constitution was submitted to the
> > original thirteen states for ratification, this argument was used
> > explicitly to defend the Constitution's lack of a guarantee of religious
> > freedom. Levy summarizes some of the more important of these instances as
> > follows:
>
> > * James Wilson of Pennsylvania, in response to the allegation that
> > there was no security for the right of conscience, asserted, "I ask the
> > honorable gentlemen, what part of this system puts it in the power of
> > Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack it is
> > idle to prepare the means of defense." Edmund Randolph of Virginia declared
> > that "no power is given expressly to Congress over religion" and added that
> > only powers "constitutionally given" could be exercised. Madison said,
> > "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle
> > with religion" Richard Dobbs Spaight of North Carolina maintained: "as to
> > the subject of religion...(n)o power is given to the general government to
> > interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be an
> > usurpation." Wilson, Randolph, Madison, and Spaight had attended the
> > Constitutional Convention. Their remarks show that Congress was powerless,
> > even in the absence of the First Amendment, to enact laws that benefited
> > one religion or church in particular or all of them equally and impartially
> > (The Establishment Clause, p. 83; emphasis in the original).
>
> > Nor was this understanding of the Constitution limited to those who
> > attended the Constitutional convention. Identical arguments were made by
> > such non-attenders as Issac Backus of Massachusetts, James Iredell and
> > Samuel Johnston of North Carolina, and Thomas Tucker of South Carolina (see
> > Levy's "The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First
> > Amendment," in James Wood, ed., Religion and State, pp. 46-53).
>
> > There is particular irony in Backus' defense of the Constitution; Backus
> > was an ardent Baptist and a staunch opponent of religious establishment. If
> > anyone were to press for additional guarantees of religious liberty in the
> > Constitution it would have been Backus, but he declined to support any bill
> > of rights. Clearly, he did not believe the federal government had any
> > ability to establish religion.
>
> > Concludes Levy:
>
> > * The members of the Constitutional convention and Americans throughout
> > the states shared a widespread understanding that the new central
> > government would have no power whatever to legislate on the subject of
> > religion, either to aid one sect exclusively or to aid all equally. Many
> > contemporaries, especially in New England, believed that governments could
> > and should foster religion, or at least Protestant Christianity. All
> > agreed, however, that the matter pertained to the realm of state government
> > and that the federal government possessed no authority to meddle in
> > religious matters ("The Original Meaning," p. 53)
>
> > In summary, the framers believed that nothing in the Constitution that
> > would allow the federal government to legislate with respect to religion.
> > Rather, there was a widespread understanding that the states had delegated
> > to the federal government only limited powers, and the federal government
> > had no ability to go beyond them. Nothing in the text of the Constitution
> > suggests otherwise. Hence, the historical record makes untenable the
> > accomodationist conclusion that the federal government had the ability to
> > aid religion, even in the absence of the First Amendment.
> > The grammar of the establishment clause
>
> > As noted elsewhere in this site, much of the present controversy over
> > separation has to do with the interpretation of the religious clauses of
> > the First Amendment. In this section we present some grammatical reasons
> > for thinking that the First Amendment should be interpreted as a broad ban
> > on the power of government over religion. We will do this in two sections.
> > First, we will present several grammatical arguments in favor of the broad
> > interpretation of the First Amendment. Second, we will address the most
> > important grammatical arguments in favor of a narrow reading.
>
> > * Grammatical arguments in favor of a broad reading of the
> > establishment clause
>
> > Responses to grammatical arguments in favor of a narrow reading.
> > Legislative history of the religion clauses
> > Research and writing by Tom Peters
>
> > 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.
> > Some accomodationist arguments:
>
> > In response to this evidence accomodationists sometimes argue that, since
> > Madison's original version of the First Amendment barred the establishment
> > of a "national" religion, and since the Senate debated language to this
> > effect, the House and Senate debates are evidence that Congress only wanted
> > a narrowly drawn amendment. But this gets the process of interpretation
> > backward; it makes the defeated versions of the amendment controlling over
> > the versions that passed! Nor do accomodationists apply this argument
> > consistently; several of the proposed versions contained language
> > guaranteeing the "rights of conscience," i.e., the right of people not to
> > be taxed to support religions with which they disagree. Does this not
> > indicate that the framers wanted to bar non-preferential taxation in favor
> > of religion? It does if one applies accomodationist logic consistently but,
> > for some odd reason, accomodationists rarely leap to this conclusion.
>
> > Another accomodationist response is to quote statements by anti-Federalists
> > (i.e., those who opposed the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of
> > Rights) to the effect that the proposed religion amendment still allowed
> > the federal government power to act in religious affairs. In particular,
> > when the proposed Bill of Rights came before the Virginia legislature for
> > ratification, a group of eight anti-Federalist state senators (none of whom
> > were framers of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and all of whom
> > opposed Jefferson's bill for religious freedom) argued that, even with the
> > religion amendment in place, the government could still tax people for the
> > general support of religion, and otherwise interfere with state
> > establishments. But this is to accept the deeply tainted opinions of the
> > opponents of the Constitution in favor of the statements of the framers
> > themselves. As Levy notes (The Establishment Clause, pp. 108-111), the
> > anti-Federalists were desperate to scrap the Constitution in favor of a
> > system that left state sovereignty intact; their strategy was to reinforce,
> > by any means at their disposal, the fear that the federal government was
> > nothing more than a monster in waiting. How better to do this than to
> > suggest the religion amendments left the monster free to pounce? One simply
> > cannot turn to statements like these--statements that have no counterpart
> > in any other state ratification debate, and which vest Congress with powers
> > that no one else at the time was able to see--as an authoritative
> > interpretation of the establishment clause. Levy's conclusion, we think, is
> > apt:
>
> > It is difficult to believe that those who rejected the establishment clause
> > understood it better than its framers, that the Anti-Federalists knew
> > better than Madison and his cohorts, and that those who supported
> > establishment of religion in Virginia revealed the criteria for
> > interpreting the limitation on Congress's powers.
>
> > ***************************************************************
> > You are invited to check out the following:
>
> > The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
>
> > American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> > The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://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&Statehttp://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)
> > . . .
> > ****************************************************************James Veverka wrote:
>
> > One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
> > by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
> > distortions.
>
> > ****************************************************************
> > 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
>
> > ****************************************************************
>
> What is the point of posting a book?
>
> The only questions you need to consider here are these:
>
> 1. Did our founding fathers say "separation" ?
Yes, two are have known to have stated it specifically.
>
> 2. What was the point of view of our founding fathers regarding
> government and the church?
Well, the founding fathers created a national motto, E Pluribus Unum,
not "In God We Trust"
The Founding Fathers did not mention God in our currency, and coinage.
Etc...
Seems pretty clear that they sought to establish a secular goverment.
>
> 3. Did our founding fathers say in the First Amendment that churches
> should not get involved in government?
>
> 4. Or did our founding fathers say that government should not get
> involved in the free exercise of churches?
Both.
>
> 5. Thus, who was being protected by the power of the First Amendment?
> The state from the church, or the church from the state?
Again, both.
>
> Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
> from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
> beginning to see in America today.
Obviously, you're wrong.
Peter Franks
No, it doesn't. Amendment I is irrelevant and inapplicable to the
judicial or executive branches.
The precepts *may* apply, but not by or through Amendment I.
Josh Rosenbluth
may? lacking the delegated power, no part of the federal government can
respect an establishment of religion, etc.
5147 Dead, 280 since 1/20/09
Oh, you want the first one? No problem:
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
--
Peter Franks
Whatever. Amendment I still only applies specifically to Congress.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Your opinion is noted, but is not the law of the land.
Peter Franks
That doesn't make it right.
5147 Dead, 280 since 1/20/09
And if Congress is barred from doing something, so are the state
governments. 14th Amendment.
--
thomas p.
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:h7sl4b$gos$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
It makes it the law of the land. "Right" is a matter of opinion; you do not
get to declare what is and what is not right.
ZerkonXXXX
> Obviously, the only thing our founders wanted was to keep government
> from harming churches since that is far more likely to occur as we are
> beginning to see in America today.
Disagree. It was to keep churches from harming churches.
A Church establishment using their power to gain influence in government
and then suppressing other churches or making their from (or any form) of
religion a legal civil necessity.
Also, still considering the day, 'government'/king was typically anointed
by a church giving the king a divine authority but this also gave the
church a political ownership over state. A church might and did use the
threat of excommunication to force policy (money) beneficial to that
church. This lives on in the English crown today.
This was the loathsome European model to be avoided and DIRECTLY
responsible for the words "We the people,.... do ordain". People (reason)
ordain not church or the God authority of church.
Peter Franks
That is correct.
> "Right" is a matter of opinion; you do not
> get to declare what is and what is not right.
If I know that something is right, I'll declare it all day and all
night, thank you.
Peter Franks
Wrong. Re-read XIV.
If what you said were true, there would be no fabricated notion of
'selective incorporation'.
thomas p.
You certainly do have the right to express your opinion as does anyone else,
but the amendment has a well-established meaning in law no matter what your
opinion as you pointed out to me already.
thomas p.
According to your opinion or according to the meaning established in law?
legist
>
> There is no "constitutional provision which prevents the President..."
> from any of your hypotheticals. Conversely, there is no constitutional
> provision which /authorizes/ any of those hypotheticals either, and
> therefore they are prohibited by implication.
So you're saying that although the Constitution specifically makes the
President the commander-in-chief, he has no power to do anything in
such a capacity because the Constitution doesn't spell out in more
detail what the commander-in-chief's powers are. Therefore, the
Framers didn't really accomplish anything by naming the President CIC.
What an inane notion.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
That is correct. Just because you hold an opinion that does not make it
right.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Peter, thanks for showing us how smugly wrong you can be.
Your naive interpretation of the Constitution shows that you can be
easily misled by those who want to cause harm to us.
Jimbo
> >news:h7sl4b$gos$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Free Lunch wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can declare it until you are blue in the face. It's irrelevant to
the law, or anyone else other than you.
fasgnadh
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
>>
>> It says nothing about the US government, nor the various states.
>>
>> The amendment applies to Congress, and only Congress.
>
> so. the executive branch can prohibit free exercise of religion, speech
> and press?
Bush and Cheney sure as shit thought so! B^[
--
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
A Nony Mouse
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > Peter Franks wrote:
> >> thomas p. wrote:
> >>
> >> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> >> prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> >>
> >> It says nothing about the US government, nor the various states.
> >>
> >> The amendment applies to Congress, and only Congress.
> >
> > so. the executive branch can prohibit free exercise of religion, speech
> > and press?
>
>
> Bush and Cheney sure as shit thought so! B^[
Atheists and agnostics would not have been so anti-American.
Peter Franks
That is correct. And as I've pointed out, that "well-established
meaning" may very well be wrong.
So, in that case, what do you propose? Just go along with it? Or do
you advocate change?
Peter Franks
Says you. Look at history.
Peter Franks
Established in law. As I said, if it were not true, there would be no
Peter Franks
No, you don't understand.
The authority is delegated to be Commander in Chief. There is no
delegated authority over prohibition of speech.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
If you want change, fine. Ask Congress to pass a new amendment. I will
strongly oppose any such attempt on your part to weaken my rights,
however.
thomas p.
You have the right to advocate changing the Constitution. You have the
right to advocate a change that provides for another method of
interpretation. In the meantime the interpretations made under the existing
method are right by definition.
thomas p.
And we will discover that an amendment means what the Court (in cases
brought before it) has interpreted it as meaning. Its interpretation is
correct by definition. Perhaps you can succeed in changing the system, but,
until you do, that is how it is. The Court's decisions may not always be
wise, so, in that sense, it may be wrong; but, in practice, what the Court
has ruled is the correct meaning.
thomas p.
The Court disagrees with you, therefore you are wrong.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have, extensively. Our country is steadily moving away from the
theocracy you advocate. Away from your bizarre and arbitrary
definitions of right, and wrong.
Among creatures born into chaos, a majority will imagine an order, a
minority will question the order, and the rest will be pronounced
insane. ~Robert Brault,
Jimbo
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:04:16 -0700, Peter Franks
>
> <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> You certainly do have the right to express your opinion as does anyone else,
> >> but the amendment has a well-established meaning in law no matter what your
> >> opinion as you pointed out to me already.
>
> >That is correct. And as I've pointed out, that "well-established
> >meaning" may very well be wrong.
>
>
> >So, in that case, what do you propose? Just go along with it? Or do
> >you advocate change?
>
> "wrong"---my guess is that it's not.
Exactly.
legist
> The authority is delegated to be Commander in Chief. There is no
> delegated authority over prohibition of speech.
And the hypotheticals I raised dealt with actions taken as commander-
in-chief, one of which had the effect of prohibiting speech, and one
(which you haven't dared to address) in which promotions above a
certain grade were denied to all blacks.
thomas p.
"Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:c8b23a32-4007-47c0...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
"Jimbo"
I have, extensively. Our country is steadily moving away from the
theocracy you advocate. Away from your bizarre and arbitrary
definitions of right, and wrong.
---------------------------
thomas p
I certainly hope that you are right. From the outside things in the US can
often look very scary.
snip
Jimbo
> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:c8b23a32-4007-47c0...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
It often looks that way from the inside as well, but I believe that
people got a full belly of the theist bullshit during the Bush
administration and is now pushing away from it. Hopefully, it will
stay that way.
Peter Franks
They are LAW by definition, but they are not CORRECT (or right as you
call it) by definition.
To show the absolute absurdity of your answer, consider the following:
Suppose the supreme Court ruled that 2+2=5. Is that correct? It may be
the law, but it isn't correct.
Peter Franks
I only advocate the strengthening of rights, never weakening. You and I
should then agree.
Peter Franks
No, is the /legal/ meaning.
You place FAR too much trust in the hand of man -- you let a few fools
in high places tell you what is correct.
Peter Franks
I've advocated no such thing. Please discuss honestly and refrain from
misrepresenting my position.
Peter Franks
The court does NOT disagree with me. Do you not understand 'selective
incorporation'? If XIV immediately did as a previous poster indicated:
"And if Congress is barred from doing something, so are the state
governments." then there would be no 'selective' nor 'incorporation'.
It would instead be 'immediate adoption'.
tv
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:05:42 +0200, thomas p. wrote:
>
> <snippage>> The only questions you need to consider here are these:
>
> <snippage>
>
> Actually, the only question one needs to consider is:
> Is there any actual evidence of the existence of any gods.
>
> Answer: No. Zero. Zilch. Butkus.
>
> Once you have that, you just apply common sense as to
> whether the government should be involved in bullcrap.
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
God is a Republican; Santa Claus is a Democrat..
Most people prefer Santa Claus to God. It's human nature.
I don't believe in Santa Claus.
Jimbo
> > in alt.atheism:
>
> >> thomas p. wrote:
> >>>news:h7tngr$pfa$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> thomas p. wrote:
> >>>>>news:h7sl4b$gos$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
That has been what every religious zealot throughout recorded history
has claimed. There is no evidence to indicate that religion has EVER
strengnthened anyone's rights.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which is much better than letting one imaginary sky-daddy and his band
of mindless syncophants tell us what is correct.
5147 Dead, 280 since 1/20/09
If you had any brains, you wouldn't believe in God for precisely the same
reasons you don't believe in Santa Claus.
--
thomas p.
The law is what the Court has authority to interpret. No matter what system
you devise some body or person will have to make rulings as to the meaning
of a law or the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court is the highest body
for that purpose, it's decisions do indeed determine what the correct
interpretation is as far as law is concerned.