And I’m pretty sure she didn’t originate this line of thought. Makes me think she’s easily led, and not critical of the advice that’s given to her.
This is where I want to see the commercial.
“Ma’am. I know me. You’re not me.”
I’m with RadicalPi, I don’t get this particular semantic quibble (which I’ve seen before). “No law respecting an establishment of religion” seems more restrictive of government involvement in religion than “separation of church and state”, not less. Granted, in many societies there was literally no separation between the state and the “church”–the king or the magistrates routinely carried out the functions of leading the community in the worship of its gods, right alongside judging disputes between members of the community or fending off the barbarians or beating up on the tribe next door and taking their stuff.
But in Christianity, even at its most theocratic, there has generally been some degree of separation of church and state, even when the institutions are closely parallel and mutually supporting. So long as we don’t literally have the U.S. Department of Spiritual Affairs (with the National Baptism Administration in charge of sprinkling babies and/or dunking teenagers, depending on which political party is in power, and the Federal Canon Commission handing down rulings on whether or not 1 Maccabees “counts”), we would have “separation of church and state” at the most literal meaning of the words. Conversely, it’s easy enough to imagine a quite theocratic society where the Ruritanian Orthodox Church is not a department of the Ruritanian government, but where Ruritanian Orthodoxy is nonetheless proclaimed by the Ruritanian Constitution to be the “Established Church” of the Ruritanian nation, and even where the Ruritanian government authorities enforce laws against blasphemy, apostasy, and so on. In a narrow sense, there might be “separation of church and state”–the King of Ruritania is not the same person as the Primate of All Ruritania, and the provincial governors are a different set of people from the bishops of the dioceses of the R.O.C.–but there is clearly an “establishment of religion”.
The “established” church in many of the colonies* was the CoE. It was supported by taxes paid by everyone, whether or not they were members of that church. You could teach creationism in schools w/o having any particular Church “established”. SoCaS severs all ties, not just the particular ties that “establish” a given church.
*Not to mention some of the states for decades after the constitution was ratified.
If they reverse themselves then the law has changed. The bottom line is that DECADES of Supreme Court decisions have upheld that the First Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state. To argue otherwise is like those idiots who believe the Federal government does not have the legal authority to tax you. They are playing an intellectual shell game where they cherry pick which parts of the Constitution and legal due process is “legitimate” based on whatever furthers their agenda.
And you can’t teach creationism or prevent the teaching of evolution in schools because creationism isn’t science. It is part of the religeous doctrine of at least one church and thus is a violation of the establishment clause.
You didn’t answer my question. Did the SCOTUS “get it right” in Dred Scott? How about Plessy?
Yes, the SCOTUS establishes the law of the land at any given time. Whether or not they “got it right” is open to interpretation and debate.
It sometimes seems as if everyone on both sides has decided that “separation of church and state” is the “stronger” language than “no establishment” (I’m a supporter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State for example, not of “Americans United for Disestablishmentarianism”). I just don’t see why that is the case. You say “SoCaS severs all ties”–on what basis do we say this? I mean, as a purely idiomatic expression of American political English, maybe; in the same way that anti-“Semites” don’t mean people who dislike Akkadians, and homophobes aren’t necessarily afraid of gays and lesbians. But we could just as easily say “no law respecting an establishment of religion” “severs all ties”. If a state mandates the teaching of creationism, or passes a blasphemy law, by the normal definitions of the English words “separation”, “church”, and “state”, the church(es) and the state are still distinct institutions.
Secondly, it is of course no establishment of religion, not merely “no established church”. I agree, “no established church” might be seen as less restrictive than “no law respecting an establishment of religion”–after all, “no established church” could quite plausibly be construed as meaning Congress still has the power to establish or support Christianity in general (“plural establishment”) so long as they don’t favor the Episcopalians over the Baptists–which was a position favored by at least some at the time of the Revolution and early United States. “No establishment of religion”, it seems to me, means Congress can’t establish Christianity over all the other religions (and godless heathenism) any more than it can establish Episcopalians over Baptists.
And of course some states had established churches until the 1830’s. This has nothing to do with whether the First Amendment says “separation of church and state” or “no established church” or “no law respecting an establishment of religion”; it’s because the First Amendment says “Congress”. It’s due to the Fourteenth Amendment and the judicial doctrine of incorporation that states are also forbidden, under the Federal constitution, to make religious establishments. But if Fourteenth Amendment incorporation is rejected–which I have seen argued for by some opponents of an expansive reading of the Establishment Clause–then all sorts of things would have to be thrown out, and your friendly neighborhood state legislature could not only pass laws for state-sponsored school prayer or creationism, they could also (as in 1830 Massachusetts) simply recognize an Established Church–and censor the press, outlaw criticism of the state government, and take away everyone’s guns. (Although they would, of course, still be subject to whatever the state constitution said.)
It’s one thing to argue that “ceremonial deism” doesn’t constitute an “establishment of religion”. (I think the whole “ceremonial deism” thing is bollocks, but I’m not on the Supreme Court.) All I’m saying is this semantic quibble–“Aha! The Constitution doesn’t say ‘separation of church and state’, it says ‘no law respecting an establishment of religion’!” is completely bogus.
Sure. But the same court created ceremonial deism, which many people argue is “getting it wrong.”
No question: the Court decides what the Constituion says. When people say the Court got it wrong, they are arguing that the decision in question was either unwise as a matter of policy or inconsistent with what a reasonable Court should have done.
I’m going to a Halloween party party, and if I can find the right masks, I’ve thought of my costume. I’m gonna tape together half an ape mask and half a Christine O’Donnell mask, and go as evolution.
You’re saying that the First Amendment prohibition, as it’s worded, is different than separation of church and state. You say it’s less restrictive, someone else here said that he thinks it’s more restrictive.
But “separation of church and state” is simply Thomas Jefferson’s own paraphrasing of what the words of the First Amendment mean. Seems to me that he didn’t intend for one to be more restrictive than the other; he thought they were the same.
By the way, the whole pitch that “SoCaS” doesn’t appear in the Constitution is largely the result of an organization here in Texas which has as its goal to tear down that wall of separation - an organization ironically named Wallbuilders.
She absolutely did not originate it, I heard it years ago. Perhaps on this very board.
Maybe she was the one who posted it.
The odds are pretty darn high against it, but this is Great Debates; one factual slip up around here and the other side will be on you like a pack of rabid hyenas.
I ignored it because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
We can argue in circles forever. Separating religion from government IS RIGHT. If you believe in the tenets of freedom laid out by the Founders, ours is a government of, by and for THE PEOPLE. Allowing influence from religion undermines that as it excludes those individuals who do not practice those beliefs.
The only people who seem to disagree with the notiong of separation of church and state appear to be those individuals who want to see their religion exert greater influence over government policy. And that’s really what the First Amendment is trying to prevent, isn’t it?
Agreed.
She is nowhere near smart enough to have originated that line of thought.
FWIW that is not snark from me. I very much mean what I just said.
Snark would be me opining that she never had an original thought in her life and is incapable of doing so. I actually believe that too but since I can’t prove it I’ll have to call my thinking snarky on that last bit.
Here’s an amusing and/or frightening study for you: Incompetent people really have no clue.
Eschew obfuscatory sesquipedalianism.
This is a specious argument. We allow influence from flat taxers even though our system excludes any implementation of flat taxation. We allow influence from third party candidates even though our system marginalizes the efforts of third party campaigns.
It’s ironic too that you invoke THE PEOPLE and then in the next breath indicate that specific things the majority of the people favor are to be excluded.
By framing your argument as “This is RIGHT,” you brook no dissent. The words of the First Amendment haven’t changed since they were adopted in 1789, but the view of what they mean has changed dramatically. No court in 1900, over a hundred years after the First Amendment was passed, felt that it forbid prayer in schools. How was it that our great-great grandfathers were blind to this now obvious fact?
The current view of the First Amendment is not bad social policy, and it’s not self-evidently wrong. It’s good, proper, and wise.
But that doesn’t make it self-evidently the only possible answer.
I’ve seen similar studies and it isn’t surprising. Most people tend to avoid activities that display their incompetance and tend to settle at their own comfort level. Since they don’t leave their comfort zone, they don’t improve. But because they know their little world very well, they project that confidence into other areas where they are completely ignorant.
Thomas Jefferson’s opinion is interesting and useful, but not definitive. People often forget that he wrote the DoI, but was not one of the writers of the Constitution. He wasn’t even one of the ratifiers of the latter document. He was in France while it was written.
Here’s a quote from a treaty, ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1797 (bolding and brackets are my own):
According to Wikipedia: