# Bye bye nonestablishment clause? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047 "2006-03-04T15:34:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/1 "2006-03-04T15:34:12Z")
[http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html](http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html) > [@KMOV](#): > > State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion > > Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state’s official “majority” religion. … > The resolution would recognize “a Christian god,” and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs. It looks like this would cause some major heartburn, and directly opposes the nonestablishment clause - I know that specific clause talks about it at the federal level, but I have to ask, how can this NOT be overturned, if it passes? Also, if it does get passed and all, exactly WHICH version of the “christian god” gets approved? The Catholic, Protestant, Southern Baptist, or Mormon version? I didn’t know the government (at federal, state, or city level) had the right to tell people what to believe - and this is what it is all about. This is the sort of thing that used to cause holy wars and inquisitions at one time. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/2 "2006-03-04T16:14:56Z")
This so obviously\* flies in the face of the Establishment Clause I am shocked they bothered. I suppose they hope the newly conservative Supreme Court will be amenable to this but I think even they will find this such an overt attack on the Establishment Clause as to have to cast it down (I would be shocked if the decision was anything but unanimous). \*- I say “obviously” but I guess my one quesion is whether the Establishment Clause applies to states? The clause says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. By that I take it to mean on the federal level and makes no mention at the state level. That said it seems to me many state level cases (frequently having to do with schools) have had the Establishment Clause applied to them. ---
**Author:** ![Taran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Taran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taran)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/3 "2006-03-04T16:25:50Z")
The Establishment Clause is for the federal government only, as far as I know. State governments can do what they like. Many state constitutions contain similar language. As long as MI isn’t one of them, the bill is entirely constitutional. With that said, what a _dumb_ idea. How the heck do you expect to govern people if you have “your religion is false” written right into your constitution? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/4 "2006-03-04T16:39:25Z")
The establishment clause originally applied only the Federal government, and some states had official religions into the early/mid 1800s. But that clause was [incorporated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29), so it does now apply to the states. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/5 "2006-03-04T16:44:05Z")
[http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/ever\_v\_boar.html](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/ever_v_boar.html) Everson v Board of Education, (1947) uses the Incorporation Doctrine to apply the Establishment Clause to the states. This would probably be considered settled law. Except… Justice Thomas doesn’t think so. He doesn’t like the idea at all. Several states have decided to agree with him. Aren’t activist judges wonderful? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/6 "2006-03-04T17:22:40Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > [http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/ever\_v\_boar.html](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/ever_v_boar.html) > > Everson v Board of Education, (1947) uses the Incorporation Doctrine to apply the Establishment Clause to the states. This would probably be considered settled law. Except… > > Justice Thomas doesn’t think so. He doesn’t like the idea at all. Several states have decided to agree with him. Aren’t activist judges wonderful? Why do you automatically assume that Thomas’ position is “activist” and that the contrary position is not? I think it’s more accurate to charactize Thomas’ position as one of restraint. It doesn’t create any law, but rather allows the legislature to act as it wishes. There is nothing in the text of the constitution that makes the incorporation argument objectively correct. Frankly, this arugment about “settled law” looks more like an appeal to preserve those SCOTUS opinions that you happen to agree with. _Stare decisis_ has its place, but it doesn’t give an automatic pass to every SCOTUS decision to never be revisited. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/7 "2006-03-04T17:34:18Z")
If I had to guess what was going on here, I would suspect that the legislator who is proposing this bill knows that it won’t pass, but wants to be able to call any legislator who votes against it “anti-Christian”. But who knows. Maybe the guy is really too stupid to know better. If it does pass, it’ll be overturned in the first federal court that hears it, and I suspect that the SCOTUS will not even agree to hear the appeal, letting the lower court decision stand. Of course it’s always risky making predictions like that without actually seeing the text of the legislation, but if the description in the link is correct, then I think my prediction is a good one. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/8 "2006-03-04T17:40:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If I had to guess what was going on here, I would suspect that the legislator who is proposing this bill knows that it won’t pass, but wants to be able to call any legislator who votes against it “anti-Christian”. But who knows. Maybe the guy is really too stupid to know better. If it does pass, it’ll be overturned in the first federal court that hears it, and I suspect that the SCOTUS will not even agree to hear the appeal, letting the lower court decision stand. > > Of course it’s always risky making predictions like that without actually seeing the text of the legislation, but if the description in the link is correct, then I think my prediction is a good one. Well, it _is_ an election year. It looks like someone’s trying to manufacture some arrows to put in his August quiver. With the added bonus of, if it does pass, having a whole court full of “activist judges” strike it down. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/9 "2006-03-04T18:07:34Z")
Text of [House Concurrent Resolution 13](http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm). As a resolution, it has no effect on law (as far as I know). The closest it comes to something able to be enforced is the clause “religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state,” but I am not sure whether that would have any real effect on lawsuits filed in Federal Court, anyway. The phrase “voluntary prayer in public schools” that precedes the above quoted clause is already acknowledged by such disparate groups as SCOTUS and the ACLU to be a true astatement, so _that_ is simply pandering. So far, it was referred to the Rules Committe on February 2 and Reported out of committe with a recommendation to pass on February 15, but it does not seem to have been scheduled for a vote, at this time, and has not yet been scheduled a hearing. It has one sponsor. The co-sponsor list shows a single name followed by _et al._, but I cannot find how many others are included _et alii_ and do not know whether that means there were two co-sponsors, 20 co-sponsors, or whether all bills get an _et al._ tacked on so that they are covered when new co-sponsors step forward. ---
**Author:** ![Taran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Taran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taran)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/10 "2006-03-04T18:08:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The establishment clause originally applied only the Federal government, and some states had official religions into the early/mid 1800s. But that clause was [incorporated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29), so it does now apply to the states. :smack: Sorry folks. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/11 "2006-03-04T18:19:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Text of [House Concurrent Resolution 13](http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm). As a resolution, it has no effect on law (as far as I know). The closest it comes to something able to be enforced is the clause “religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state,” but I am not sure whether that would have any real effect on lawsuits filed in Federal Court, anyway. Well, there you go. Sound anf fury, signifying nothing. A feel-good resolution that doesn’t actually create any law, but does allow the good citizens of the great state of MI to see which of their legislators are “anti-Christian”. That is, if it gets voted on. Looks like the “nonestablishment clause” is safe afterall. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/12 "2006-03-04T18:21:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, there you go. Sound anf fury, signifying nothing. A feel-good resolution that doesn’t actually create any law, but does allow the good citizens of the great state of MI to see which of their legislators are “anti-Christian”. That is, if it gets voted on. > > Looks like the “nonestablishment clause” is safe afterall. 🙂 It’s MO, just in point of nitpick. MI is Michigan. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/13 "2006-03-04T18:22:30Z")
Well, we could go for two directions on this. The bizarre, Bork-like interpretations of the law of Justice Thomas, or a discussion on Stare Decisis, John. Your call. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/14 "2006-03-04T18:26:05Z")
I’m having trouble identifying the bill the news story talks about. The closest I can come to is this: [http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm](http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm) which Rep. Sater sponsored. It’s a House resolution saying that the Missouri House doesn’t think that prayer in schools or nativity displays on public property violate the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/15 "2006-03-04T18:33:18Z")
I suspected there were ways to prevent this sort of thing from happening, thanks there. With the upcoming 2006 elections coming soon, maybe this is nothing more tha pre-election rabble rousing. Author a bill and then hope it fails, so one can then say “See that? I tried. Vote for me”. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. I’m bothered though, that any politician would use such a “bigoted” (can’t think of a better word) tactic, and worse that he thinks people will (and they would) buy into it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/16 "2006-03-04T18:42:40Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Well, we could go for two directions on this. The bizarre, Bork-like interpretations of the law of Justice Thomas, or a discussion on Stare Decisis, John. Your call. That’s not the issue I was bringing up. It was unclear to me by what principle you classified Thomas’ position on the establishment clause as being “activist”, and yet (presumably) you wouldn’t consider the court’s opinion in _Everson v. Board of Education_ to be “activist”. Can you explain that? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/17 "2006-03-04T19:12:40Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Sound and fury, signifying nothing. I’m bothered though, that any politician would use such a “bigoted” (can’t think of a better word) tactic, and worse that he thinks people will (and they would) buy into it. Yes, they would. The idea of complete seperation of Church and State is not a very popular opinion in the US. It’s surprising just how much support a resolution like this would have in the country as a whole and in certain states in particular. I have to wonder if the Establishment Clause (as currently interpreted by the SCOTUS) would be ratified today if we had a referendum on it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/18 "2006-03-04T19:38:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s not the issue I was bringing up. It was unclear to me by what principle you classified Thomas’ position on the establishment clause as being “activist”, and yet (presumably) you wouldn’t consider the court’s opinion in _Everson v. Board of Education_ to be “activist”. Can you explain that? Just taking a wild stab here, but might the phrase be intended as ironic? Yoiu know, like, humor? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/19 "2006-03-05T05:57:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s not the issue I was bringing up. It was unclear to me by what principle you classified Thomas’ position on the establishment clause as being “activist”, and yet (presumably) you wouldn’t consider the court’s opinion in _Everson v. Board of Education_ to be “activist”. Can you explain that? Actually, I would, all things considered. I also think the word has comparatively little meaning. Any judge who makes a ruling that involves interpretation of laws to fit a situation slightly different from those they were designed for can be considered activist. That said, I think the partial incorporation doctrine is a bit, well, half-arsed. Full or none, is what I say. I also think the 9th amendment is not meaningless, and that the modern executive, judicial, and legislative branches need whuppins with hickory sticks. Preferably by someone yelling “I told you not to be stupid, you moron!” ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bye-bye-nonestablishment-clause/347047/20 "2006-03-05T06:26:56Z")
For these people, Christianity is about unzipping your fly, yanking down your shorts, and marking territory.