# 1st Amendment "Freedom of Religion" clause **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 16, 2007, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262 "2007-03-16T21:40:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/21 "2007-03-20T03:41:56Z")
Thanks, **Gfactor**! I’ll pick up a couple of those. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/22 "2007-03-20T05:41:53Z")
I’ve always thought, in what I thought was a plain-text reading of the amendment, that “an establishment of religion” would be for example the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists, or even the Boy Scouts of America (that those groups/organizations are themselves the “establishments” being referred to). And therefore a prohibition against respecting one of these establishments would mean that the government can’t respect, or favor, any of them. So I guess that’s not what they meant? ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/23 "2007-03-20T19:28:37Z")
[QUOTE=CurtC] I’ve always thought, in what I thought was a plain-text reading of the amendment, that “an establishment of religion” would be for example the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists, or even the Boy Scouts of America (that those groups/organizations are themselves the “establishments” being referred to). And therefore a prohibition against respecting one of these establishments would mean that the government can’t respect, or favor, any of them. So I guess that’s not what they meant? [/QUOTE] Utterly impossible to anyone who knows 18th-century English. “respecting” == “having to do with” “establishment” == “official government backing of religion, specifically, as the Church of England was and is in England” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/24 "2007-03-20T19:49:43Z")
Did anyone else notice that this article was so well researched it even has a reference by Agent 007? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/25 "2007-03-20T20:15:45Z")
[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy] “establishment” == “official government backing of religion, specifically, as the Church of England was and is in England” [/QUOTE] Right. In fact, most of the establishment issues during the era involved appropriation of church taxes for distribution to an “established” church or churches. An example is the controversial proposed Bill \*\*Establishing \*\* a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion (Emphasis added): [http://candst.tripod.com/assessb.htm](http://candst.tripod.com/assessb.htm) Madison responded to this proposal with his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments: [http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison\_m&r\_1785.html](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html), in which he refers to the system described in the bill as an establishment. > [@](#): > > Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. > [@](#): > > Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. > [@](#): > > Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? > [@](#): > > Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/26 "2007-03-21T00:51:35Z")
[QUOTE=The Controvert] Did anyone else notice that this article was so well researched it even has a reference by Agent 007? [/QUOTE] Bond. James E. Bond, [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=23060921689219](http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=23060921689219) ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/27 "2007-03-21T20:13:42Z")
They wouldn’t have said “establishment” if they meant “institution”. An “establishment” is an act of having established something. To affix a 10 Commandments plaque in a courthouse is to establish religion there. Once you’ve estalbished it, it becomes an establishment. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/28 "2007-03-21T22:46:10Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] They wouldn’t have said “establishment” if they meant “institution”. An “establishment” is an act of having established something. To affix a 10 Commandments plaque in a courthouse is to establish religion there. Once you’ve estalbished it, it becomes an establishment. [/QUOTE] This assertion is naive in the extreme. It assumes two things: 1. an unchanging meaning for the word _establishment_, and 2. an unnuanced (and ahistorical) meaning for the phrase used “establishment of religion.” The best source for understanding what the potential meanings for the phrase “respecting an establishment of religion” are as used in the Amendment when added in 1791 is contemporary writings. If you read those writings, you will find that, first, there was no agreement among the authorities at the time as to exactly what was meant by this phrase, and second, it certainly didn’t mean what you are asserting it meant. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/29 "2007-03-22T12:37:18Z")
I’m another who found the piece very informative. Fine job. ---
**Author:** ![Dan\_Norder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4af34b/32.png) [@Dan\_Norder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dan_Norder)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262/30 "2007-03-22T13:04:19Z")
[QUOTE=RiverRunner] What was so ignorant about the question? [/QUOTE] The question itself wasn’t ignorant, it was the fact that the person was trying to claim outright what should be “obvious” and was completely wrong about it, as anyone who had ever read anything about it at all would have known. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-amendment-freedom-of-religion-clause/396262.md?page=1)