Is there truly a separation of church and state, or is it only brought up when someone gets offended by the ‘coming together’ of church and state? For example; a nativity creche in front of a towns city hall.
Here’s what appears in the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
OK, I’m taking bets now!
Which happens first: the non-descriptive thread title gets changed, or this gets moved into Great Debates?
I’ll give two-to-one to anyone who bets that they both happen at the same time!
I choose moving to Great Debates!
As has been noted in many revious threads, the phrase “separation of church and state” was first given prominent use in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to some ministers. Back then, ministers were worried that there wouldn’t be any separation.
Yes, The Constitution really does provide for such separation, but there is a constant struggle among people of fair minds and good conscience (and a lot of jerks too) as to how far it extends. You can pray in public school (really: you just can’t coerce children to do so), and fire departments and garbage men serve churches the same as any other buildings.
On the other hand, only today The U. S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a Divinity student who argued that his ineligibility for government-sponsored scholarships violates his freedom of religion.
This seems like an interesting definition of freedom: it requires having the government pay you to do what you want to do.
As a person who doesn’t particularly want to see his and other people’s tax dollars going to sponsor people to study to become Shiite clerics or Orthodox Rabbis (or, for that matter, clergy in my own denomination), I’m hoping his arguments will result in a good laugh all round.
The basis of the countries foundation was too do things that were not done in England in the past few years, like start a heretical church when Henry the Eighth gets angry. The worst part is that the church was “offical” and the populace was supposed to accept it. Papal decries didn’t always work out too well for everyone either.
The basis was Freedom, individual and beatiful. The law isn’t a call for the absence of religion in anything government, but a prevention of a state being run by religion.
In this case, it’s more like not having the government refuse to give you the same consideration as everyone else because it’s religiously related. Everyone attending a four year college is eligible for the scholarships in question unless they are undertaking a religious (any religion) course of study. Sounds like a fundamental inequality.
slipster, in this particular case, I hope that the young man gets his scholarship. It was already awarded to him but was taken away when he wanted to study to become a minister. I don’t think it’s the state’s business what he studies.
If our country ever gets into the voucher system for schools, again, I don’t think it is the state’s business which school the money goes to as long as it is accredited.
I am as much for the state staying out of the church’s business as I am for the church staying out of the state’s business.
Descriptive titles are good. I’ve changed the title for you.
Also, General Questions is for questions with factual answers and Great Debates is for debates. So, I’m moving this to GD.
Off to GD.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
Very good points, although I’d quibble with the last sentence. Not so much a state run by a religion, but a religion run (or supported) by the state. Amendment III is another part of the counstitution that seem anachronistic now, but was probably of great concern to the ex-colonists:
That’s a good example of how the mindset then was sometimes focused on things we would never think for a minute would be a concern.
I personally think the founders would have been a lot more explicit if they intended to keep religion completely out of the public sphere. Actually, I wish they had been more explicit and had said “there shall be a complete seperation of religion and state”. Then we wouldn’t have to waste untold amount of energy getting the Ten Commandments out of courthouses, and fighting over whether “under God” should or shouldn’t be in the pledge.
GaryM you should have taken those 2-1 simultaneous odds!
But since you’re the only one to actually lay down a bet, you’ll get the generous payout.
Double electrons are on the way to your computer now. Don’t spend them all in one place!
OK, I’m done.
I’m of two minds about this. On one hand, I agree with you, and I feel bad for the kid.
However, on the other hand, religion is a special case singled out in our Constitution for special protection.
Training to be a minister is not the same thing as studying an academic subject, and theology is not an academic discipline in the way majoring in religion is: it is not a broad subject area of inquiry, but is, rather, dedicated to the advancement of a particular religious belief and tradition. Worse, it’s hard to see how allowing religious education to be funded in this way could be limited to just this one case: it would throw open the door to government funding of religion plain and simple, which is something that even anti-separation advocates should be thinking twice about. It’s certainly a violation of people’s religious consciences that their own taxed-away money will be used to promote ideas that are against their own religion or beliefs. This was opposed by both Madison and Jefferson quite explicitly.
That sounds like an anti-National Endowment for the Arts argument.
i agree with your facts, but on your interpretation of them, i must disagree. if there was one religion in particular that was singled out, i would be more inclined to believe that someone’s “free practice” rights were violated.
it is the government’s money, and they can withhold it if they don’t believe the cause is something they should promote. that is, provided their withholding doesn’t violate the laws. in this case, i don’t see any constitutional violation. if it’s a “free practice” issue, why should he expect to be paid? does the fact that the government doesn’t pay you to pursue your religious studies indicate an infringement on the free practice of religion? it’s clearly not an establishment issue, since it seems obviously to be a law against establishment. i also don’t see any 14th amendment considerations here.
Just wanted to say that this pro-separation-of-church-and-state Doper thinks the kid should get this scholarship. Unless the scholarship stated upfront that it was not applicable for theological studies, this is after-the-fact discrimination based on religion, which is a no-no.
Yeah, and look who got their way in that case. The NEA budget was slashed and strict new rules were implemented as to who gets grants, all beause some religious folks didn’t like some of the art being produced.
Most dogmatic separationists evidently see this as a sentence without a subject. The BOR is not, strictly speaking, an enumeration of the rights of the people, but a restriction on government’s ability to infringe upon such rights. With that in mind, let us notice that of the first eight amedments, only the first names any branch of government. IOW, while the first amendment limits the power of Congress to abridge religious freedoms, it does NOT restrict state or local governments from doing so.
Separationists claim that the fouteenth amendment extends first amendment rights to the states, but that is based on the fallacy engendered by the misapprehension of freedom to excercise religion as a first amendment right. That may be convenient shorthand, but the first amendment only protects those rights at a federal level. Neverthelss, the “doctrine of incorporation” claims that because the fourteenth amendment extended “first amendment rights” to the state level, the establishment clause also applies to the states. There is no way one can get that out of the plain meaning of those amendments. What we have in the “doctrine of incorporation”, therefore is a defacto and illegal amendment of the Constitution by way of judicial edict.
The problem is, there is no special protections for people’s views on art.
Also, remember that in this case, we’re dealing not just with the First Amendment, but a state law that exists to protect one person’s funds from going to fund someone else’s religion.
Um, yguy, then what the hell is the point of having the Bill of Rights, then?
As I said, they restrict the power of government to infringe on certain rights.
I don’t really see what you’re having a problem with. Had the framers desired to keep states from respecting establishments of religion, it would have been simple to make it a blanket prohibition by not specifying any particular branch of government, as do amendments 2-8. They didn’t do that. Therefore, the only constitutional protection such rights have at a state or local level is in the ninth and tenth amendments.