# John Ascroft violating the separation of church and state? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 15, 2001, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538 "2001-05-15T22:21:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2001, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/121 "2001-05-30T22:08:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* What is the source of the “right to have a religion free workplace”? No doubt it’s a God-given right. 😉 [/QUOTE] Then you err severely. No doubt, in the United States of America, the Constitution of the United States, which establishes the current governemnt AND IS NOT a part of the Declaration of Independence, is the document which recognizes, nay grants, those rights. I swear you read almost as well as the other Nine Commandments Flaming Fundamentalist Just About Illiterate Single-Book Worshippers do. Which is to say: not very well at all. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2001, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/122 "2001-05-30T22:29:35Z")
For the benefit of those who can’t remember that the Constitution of the United States of America does not mention deity, here is the full text of the document (from [http://www.instituteontheconstitution.com](http://www.instituteontheconstitution.com): > [@](#): > > CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. > Article I > Section 1 > All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. > Section 2 > The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. > No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. > [Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.] The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. > When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. > The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. > Section 3 > The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof,] for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. > Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; [and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.] > No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. > The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. > The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. > The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. > Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. > Section 4 > The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. > The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be [on the first Monday in December,] unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day. > Section 5 > Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. > Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. > Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal. > Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. > Section 6 > The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. > No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. > Section 7 > All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. > Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. > Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. > Section 8 > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; > > To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; > > To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; > > To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; > > To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; > > To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; > > To establish Post Offices and post Roads; > > To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; > > To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; > > To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; > > To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; > > To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; > > To provide and maintain a Navy; > > To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; > > To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; > > To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; > > To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; And > > To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. > > Section 9 > The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. > > The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. > > No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. > > No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. > > No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. > > No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. > > No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. > > No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: > And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. > Section 10 > > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. > No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. > Article II > Section 1 > The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. > [The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.] > The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. > No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. > [In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.] > The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. > Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” > Section 2 > > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. > The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. > Section 3 > > He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. > Section 4 > > The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. > Article III > Section 1 > The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. > Section 2 > The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - [between a State and Citizens of another State;] between Citizens of different States, - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.] > In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. > The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. > Section 3 > > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. > The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. > Article IV > Section 1 > Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. > Section 2 > The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. > A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. > [No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.] > Section 3 > > New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. > The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. > Section 4 > > The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. > Article V > Section 1 > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. > Article VI > All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. > 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. > Article VII > The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. > Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, > Go. Washington–Presidt: > and deputy from Virginia > New Hampshire > John Langdon > Nicholas Gilman > Massachusetts > Nathaniel Gorham > Rufus King > > Connecticut > Wm. Saml. Johnson > Roger Sherman > > New York > Alexander Hamilton > > New Jersey > Wil: Livingston > David Brearley > Wm. Paterson > Jona: Dayton > > Pennsylvania > B Franklin > Thomas Mifflin > Robt Morris > Geo. Clymer > Thos. FitzSimons > Jared Ingersoll > James Wilson > Gouv Morris > > Delaware > Geo: Read > Gunning Bedford jun > John Dickinson > Richard Bassett > Jaco: Broom > Maryland > James McHenry > Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer > Danl Carroll > > Virginia > John Blair- > James Madison Jr. > > North Carolina > Wm. Blount > Richd. Dobbs Spaight > Hu Williamson > > South Carolina > J. Rutledge > Charles Cotesworth Pinckney > Charles Pinckney > Pierce Butler > > Georgia > William Few > Abr Baldwin > > Attest William Jackson Secretary > > In Convention Monday > September 17th, 1787. > Present > The States of > New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. > Resolved, > That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution. > That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution. > By the unanimous Order of the Convention > Go. Washington-Presidt: > W. JACKSON Secretary. > > Amendment I > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. > Amendment II > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. > Amendment III > No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. > Amendment IV > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > Amendment V > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. > Amendment VI > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. > Amendment VII > In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. > Amendment VIII > Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. > Amendment IX > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. > Amendment X > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. > Amendment XI > Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. > Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11. > The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. > Amendment XII > Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804. > Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment. > The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; – the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; – The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]\* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. > \*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment. > Amendment XIII > Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. > Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment. > Section 1. > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. > Section 2. > Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > > Amendment XIV > Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. > Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. > Section 1. > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. > Section 2. > Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,\* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. > Section 3. > No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. > Section 4. > The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. > Section 5. > The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. > \*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment. > > Amendment XV > Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870. > Section 1. > The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude– > Section 2. > The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > Amendment XVI > Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913. > Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16. > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. > Amendment XVII > Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913. > Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment. > The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. > When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. > This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. > Amendment XVIII > Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21. > Section 1. > After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. > Section 2. > The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > Section 3. > This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. > Amendment XIX > Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920. > The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. > Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > Amendment XX > Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933. > Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3. > Section 1. > The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. > Section 2. > The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. > Section 3. > If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. > Section 4. > The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. > Section 5. > Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article. > Section 6. > This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission. > Amendment XXI > Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933. > Section 1. > The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. > Section 2. > The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. > Section 3. > This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. > Amendment XXII > Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951. > Section 1. > No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. > Section 2. > This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress. > Amendment XXIII > Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961. > Section 1. > The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct: > A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. > Section 2. > The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > Amendment XXIV > Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964. > Section 1. > The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax. > Section 2. > The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > Amendment XXV > Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967. > Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment. > Section 1. > In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. > Section 2. > Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. > Section 3. > Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. > Section 4. > Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. > Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. > Amendment XXVI > Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971. > Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment. > Section 1. > The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. > Section 2. > The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > Amendment XXVII > Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992. > No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2001, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/123 "2001-05-31T00:47:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Then you err severely. No doubt, in the United States of America, the Constitution of the United States, which establishes the current governemnt AND IS NOT a part of the Declaration of Independence, is the document which recognizes, nay grants, those rights. > > I swear you read almost as well as the other Nine Commandments Flaming Fundamentalist Just About Illiterate Single-Book Worshippers do. Which is to say: not very well at all. \*\* Monty, it’s YOU who have trouble reading. Even worse, you seem to be humor-challenged. My comment was a joke. It didn’t mention the Constitution. The joke referred to the Declaration of Independence, which says, > [@](#): > > We hold these truths to be self-evident,—that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; 1 that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hoped there was humor in the concept of our Creator endowing us with the unalienable “right to have a religion free workplace.” Getting serious, when you wrote,“the Constitution of the United States…IS NOT a part of the Declaration of Independence,” I think you may have meant the the D of I is not a part of the Constitution. However looking under Google, I found this cite [http://www.ncoausa.org/capitaloffice1/declaration\_of\_independence.htm](http://www.ncoausa.org/capitaloffice1/declaration_of_independence.htm) It says, > [@](#): > > …their concepts and doctrines that “All men are created equal” and were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” were incorporated into the Constitution of the newly established United States of America; Are there any historians or lawyers who could confirm whether the D of I has been incorporated into the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2001, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/124 "2001-05-31T14:04:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Are there any historians or lawyers who could confirm whether the D of I has been incorporated into the Constitution?** The D of I is not considered to be any part of the law of the land by the Supreme Court. It is entirely irrelevant to law. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2001, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/125 "2001-05-31T14:27:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Degrance \* > \*\*The D of I is not considered to be any part of the law of the land by the Supreme Court. It is entirely irrelevant to law. \*\* While I would agree with the first statement, I take issue to the second. Courts have, on occasion, referenced the Declaration of Independence as well as other writings (such as the Federalist Papers) not legally part of the “law of the land” in order to find guidance in interpreting that law, when the law is less than wholly clear. So I would not accept the statement that the Declaration of Independence is entirely irrelevant to law; it clearly is not. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2001, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/126 "2001-05-31T16:21:22Z")
DMC asks: > [@](#): > > Are you really trying to convince someone that John Q. Staffer is equal in rank to the AG of the USA? During off duty hours, yes. The Bible group is being held during off duty hours. The rest of your post seems to be based on the premise that the public practice of Christianity is a violation of non-Christian rights. This is simple nonsense. People’s rights are being violated by John Ashcroft meeting with like-minded people to discuss the Bible to the same extent that my right to be a Christian is being violated by the fact that there is an atheists’ group that holds public meetings - that is to say, not at all. I don’t agree with the atheists, and don’t wish to attend their meetings. So I don’t. Others don’t agree with John Ashcroft’s beliefs, and don’t wish to attend his meetings. So they don’t. If John Ashcroft or the atheists or anyone else is taking some action against me at my work based on my beliefs as a Christian, I would have cause to complain. Absent that, we are all free to do as we like, whether others like it or not. Yet again, please produce some evidence that someone is being harmed. “He’s disagreeing with me, and that hurts my feelings” is not, however, evidence. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2001, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/127 "2001-05-31T17:44:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > **During off duty hours, yes. The Bible group is being held during off duty hours.** Yes it is, at a place of employment, with his employees being the invitees. > [@](#): > > **The rest of your post seems to be based on the premise that the public practice of Christianity is a violation of non-Christian rights. This is simple nonsense.** The only nonsense here is you making false claims about what I stated. Please show me where I said that public practice is a violation. I’ve stressed repeatedly that Ashcroft can pray to any damn boogieman he wants, **outside of the workplace** , or with by himself or with his **peers** (is this the word you don’t seem to grasp?), anywhere he wants. In the future, if you’d like to make absurd claims like this, at least have the decency to attempt to back them up. > [@](#): > > **People’s rights are being violated by John Ashcroft meeting with like-minded people to discuss the Bible to the same extent that my right to be a Christian is being violated by the fact that there is an atheists’ group that holds public meetings - that is to say, not at all.** Nope, as I’ve said **numerous** times. You are not in any way being violated by an atheist group having a public meeting. You **would** be correct to “call foul” if your boss was holding these meetings at the workplace and asked if you’d like to join, although it’s “voluntary.” > [@](#): > > **I don’t agree with the atheists, and don’t wish to attend their meetings. So I don’t. Others don’t agree with John Ashcroft’s beliefs, and don’t wish to attend his meetings. So they don’t.** Apples and oranges, unless your boss is holding these types of meetings at the office. > [@](#): > > **If John Ashcroft or the atheists or anyone else is taking some action against me at my work based on my beliefs as a Christian, I would have cause to complain. Absent that, we are all free to do as we like, whether others like it or not.** Okay, I guess we’ll have to wait until someone decides to lose their job and sue the most powerful lawyer in the country. > [@](#): > > **Yet again, please produce some evidence that someone is being harmed. “He’s disagreeing with me, and that hurts my feelings” is not, however, evidence.** I **have** provided evidence. I’d even argue that I’ve provided more significant laws, examples, etc. in a single paragraph of my previous posts, than you have produced in all of your’s. You have also failed to address a large number of counterpoints that I made to your arguments in previous posts. If this is going to continue, I’m wasting my time and will continue this discussion with those who wish to actually debate the issue. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2001, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/128 "2001-05-31T20:09:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DMC \* > \*\*Look, if the senate wants to have a voluntary prayer/moment of silence in the morning, go for it. They are peers. \*\* This may be incorrect if Senate staffers are invited to participate. If they do participate, then this is more parallel to what Ashcroft is doing. (BTW it was only a few years ago that Senate staffers were given the protection of normal employee laws, thanks to Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America.) I ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2001, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/129 "2001-05-31T20:36:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*DMC asks: > > > [@](#): > > > > Are you really trying to convince someone that John Q. Staffer is equal in rank to the AG of the USA? > > During off duty hours, yes. The Bible group is being held during off duty hours.\*\* The meeting is held in the office and ends one second before the work day starts and is sponsored by the AG. Your argument that his activity is held during off duty hours just doesn’t float. It is held while people are working in the building. > [@](#): > > **The rest of your post seems to be based on the premise that the public practice of Christianity is a violation of non-Christian rights. This is simple nonsense.** Agreed, your perception of the argument is simple nonsense. > [@](#): > > **People’s rights are being violated by John Ashcroft meeting with like-minded people to discuss the Bible to the same extent that my right to be a Christian is being violated by the fact that there is an atheists’ group that holds public meetings** Absolutely if your boss “invites” you to an atheist meeting that ends when the work day begins I would back you 100% in standing up for your right to be free of that situation in your workplace. > [@](#): > > **I don’t agree with the atheists, and don’t wish to attend their meetings.** Even if your CEO were sponsoring the meetings? What if that is the only way you could get direct access to the CEO of your organization? You could just sit and nod, Not really buy into his position. He would see your face get to know your name. Nod when he sees you in the hall. Just having the CEO know your name can really be a plus in your career. You would pass up that opportunity just cause you don’t agree with his opinion? Especially when the person you are competing with for that big promotion is already attending. Can you afford to take the risk that showing up will not make a difference? This is your livelihood we are talking about here. Whether Ashcorft is intending it or not he is selling access to his official self. The price being attending his Bible classes. For Christians this is no problem. For non-Christians, well they have a choice, do without the benefits to be gained by having social interaction with the boss or betray their religious convictions. > [@](#): > > **If John Ashcroft or the atheists or anyone else is taking some action against me at my work based on my beliefs as a Christian, I would have cause to complain. Absent that, we are all free to do as we like, whether others like it or not.** As my comments above point out John Ashcroft has already “taken action against” every non-Christian in the organization by forcing them to choose between their faith and their employment future where Christians are free of any such conflict. Therefore the Christians are in a preferential situation directly because of Ashcroft’s actions. > [@](#): > > **Yet again, please produce some evidence that someone is being harmed. “He’s disagreeing with me, and that hurts my feelings” is not, however, evidence.** Why do you persist so in the throwing of red herring? This isn’t about feelings. It is about my workplace being a more stressful, unpleasant place for me to do my job because my boss is a jerk. It does not matter before the law whether he is a sexist jerk, a racist jerk, and ageist jerk or a religist jerk. The whole point is the HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT that he is creating. It matters not what tool (in Ashcroft’s case religion) he uses to create that environment. All that matters is that the environment he creates adversely affects me and my ability to do my job. Legally that is harm. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the law. The law is clear. Cases like this have been one by the aggrieved party. GET IT YET!?!? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2001, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/130 "2001-06-01T13:28:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Degrance \* > **[Legally that is harm. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the law. The law is clear. Cases like this have been one by the aggrieved party.** It doesn’t look as clear to me as it does to you, Degrance. Which law do you believe is violated by these meetings? ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2001, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/131 "2001-06-01T15:46:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Degrance \* > > **[Legally that is harm. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the law. The law is clear. Cases like this have been one by the aggrieved party.** > > It doesn’t look as clear to me as it does to you, Degrance. Which law do you believe is violated by these meetings? \*\* From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > [@](#): > > (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - > . . . > (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I think it is pretty obvious that Ashcroft has created an environment where non-Christians are segregated and deprived of opportunities. Re-read my last post. > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court has twice held that Title VII prohibits a hostile work environment on the basis of sex, race, or religion. Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986); Harris v. Forklift Systems, 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993). A quote from the Supreme Court ruling on the latter case. [http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1168.ZO.html](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1168.ZO.html) > [@](#): > > But Title VII comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown. A discriminatorily abusive work environment, even one that does not seriously affect employees’ psychological well being, can and often will detract from employees’ job performance, discourage employees from remaining on the job, or keep them from advancing in their careers. Moreover, even without regard to these tangible effects, the very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality. IANAL but I think that a combination of Ashcroft’s public statements about minority religions combined with his promotion of Christianity to his staff would combine to create a hostile working environment for any member of a minority religion under his supervision. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2001, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/132 "2001-06-01T18:28:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Degrance \* > \*\*IANAL but I think that a combination of Ashcroft’s public statements about minority religions combined with his promotion of Christianity to his staff would combine to create a hostile working environment for any member of a minority religion under his supervision. > \*\* Degrance, thanks for a clear and cogent answer. You make a stronger case than I expected. It’s interesting that youo focus on the workplace, rather than the fact that this occurs in the government. IANAL either, but it seems to me that a key point may be whether pro-Christian = anti-Non-Christian. A related concept has been addressed on the gay T-shirt thread. Does a Gay Pride or Straight Pride T-shirt imply hostility to the other group? Apparently the legal answer in both cases is NO. Similarly, the American Public Health Assn. convention has a specifically designated gay sub-group. Does this create a hostile working environment for straights? I don’t think so. FWIW I would guess that to show a hostile working environment one would have to demonstrate something more directly anti-Semitic or or anti-Muslim or anti-atheist. BTW I was unaware of Ashcroft’s public statements about minority religions. Can you tell us what he said or porvide a cite? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/133 "2001-06-01T21:07:32Z")
This is going nowhere. I keep asking for evidence that Ashcroft is harming anyone. You keep accusing him of doing so, and calling it evidence. For instance - DMC writes: > [@](#): > > . I’ve stressed repeatedly that Ashcroft can pray to any damn boogieman he wants, outside of the workplace, or with by himself or with his peers (is this the word you don’t seem to grasp?) I understand the word ‘peer’ to refer to ‘someone who is my equal’. Outside of work, Ashcroft is an American citizen. So am I. I am therefore, legally, morally (and in the eyes of God, but you will have to take my word for that) his equal. The instant he attempts to treat anyone differently because they do or do not attend his Bible sessions (this is what I have been asking for proof is happening, and have heard exactly _nothing_), he is overstepping his bounds and will and should be slapped down. As far as I can tell, what you are suggesting is that we cannot possibly take the chance that this might happen at some time in the future, so he cannot be allowed his rights now. Guilty until proven innocent, and no proof will be considered. And: > [@](#): > > You would be correct to “call foul” if your boss was holding these meetings at the workplace and asked if you’d like to join, although it’s “voluntary.” Voluntary is voluntary, until proven otherwise. Where I work, there are bowling leagues, and I don’t bowl. There are softball games, and I don’t play softball. There are volleyball leagues, and I don’t play volleyball. I have been invited to most of these at one time or another. By inviting me to join my colleagues in various activities **during non-work hours** I have had my rights violated? And how is this changed by making an atheist gathering? Or a Christian one? There is even a gay/lesbian support group where I work, to which there is a standing invitation (from management) to any who might wish to attend. Have I been sexually harassed? How thin-skinned am I expected to be? > [@](#): > > Okay, I guess we’ll have to wait until someone decides to lose their job and sue the most powerful lawyer in the country. Actually, a bit longer than that. We will have to wait until somebody produces some evidence of harm they have suffered, and proved their case with a preponderance of the evidence. To judge by this thread, we may be waiting for a while. And Degrange writes: > [@](#): > > The meeting is held in the office and ends one second before the work day starts and is sponsored by the AG. Your argument that his activity is held during off duty hours just doesn’t float. So off duty isn’t off duty? You aren’t making any sense. > [@](#): > > Whether Ashcorft is intending it or not he is selling access to his official self. No, I would say he was taking pains to keep his official self separate, both by holding the meetings during non-work hours and by being (as far as anyone here can show) scrupulously fair toward his staff, both those who attend and those who don’t. I repeat (for the last time, I hope) my plea for a scrap of evidence that this is not the case. I am sure the ACLU and the DNC would be delighted to hear from you as well, should you have more to offer than you have shown to date. > [@](#): > > As my comments above point out John Ashcroft has already “taken action against” every non-Christian in the organization by forcing them to choose between their faith and their employment future where Christians are free of any such conflict. You have made the accusation (repeatedly). What examples can you give that John Ashcroft has damaged or threatened to damage anyone’s employment future? You are afraid he might. This is an accusation. Showing how he has would be evidence. Any to offer? Or are we simply to understand that all those Christians are such obvious monsters that the rule of law and the Constitution are superfluous? > [@](#): > > This isn’t about feelings. It is about my workplace being a more stressful, unpleasant place for me to do my job because my boss is a jerk. So because you think John Ashcroft is a jerk, you want to prevent him from practicing his religion in his off hours. And you want to prevent others from doing the same in his company. How is this _not_ about feelings? You cannot cite any instance in which John Ashcroft has done anything to or for anyone based on his or her religious beliefs. Yet you say he is creating a hostile work environment, simply because his actions show that he believes in something that you do not. > [@](#): > > ## From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 quote: > > ## (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - . . . (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. > > I think it is pretty obvious that Ashcroft has created an environment where non-Christians are segregated and deprived of opportunities. No, not even a little bit. Please show where he has segregated anyone at work, or deprived anyone of anything at work. One instance would be enough. Do I get it, as you are screaming? No, I don’t. I do not share your visceral reaction against public displays of religious belief. And in the absence of evidence, I would not say that your reactions constitute proof of any crime. Christians have rights. Religious speech is protected speech. And the Constitution guarantees no one the right to be protected from knowing that there are those who think differently from you. John Ashcroft believes differently from you. This is his right. He wishes to persuade others to think as he does. This is his right. Some of his co-workers choose to join him. This is their right. Some choose not to. This is their right. Sorry if this offends you, but to shut him down? That is _not_ your right. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/134 "2001-06-04T06:13:24Z")
> [@](#): > > _Posted by Shodan_ > This is going nowhere. You can say that again, what with the automatic gainsaying of any material provided by Degrance, Kelly, myself, DMC, Tornado Siren, and others. > [@](#): > > I keep asking for evidence that Ashcroft is harming anyone. You keep accusing him of doing so, and calling it evidence. There are several arguments you have yet to refute. I will let those stand, as they are _still_ posted here. But I will address some problems I see with your response. > [@](#): > > Outside of work, Ashcroft is an American citizen. So am I. I am therefore, legally, morally (and in the eyes of God, but you will have to take my word for that) his equal. Apart from revealing your bias here, you are making a false statement. Ashcroft, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, is AG 24/7. His duties, status, and responsibilities do not cease with office hours, anymore than the Presidents’ do. > [@](#): > > (this is what I have been asking for proof is happening, and have heard exactly nothing) Exactly nothing? Please read above, as it seems you are clearly missing several relevant arguments. > [@](#): > > Guilty until proven innocent, and no proof will be considered. You appear entirely too emotional about this topic. Guilty until proven innocent is not the tactic here. The tactic is to investigate a person who is a suspect. The motive exists, we have the evidence (please don’t deny it again until you consider Tornado’s comment, as well as Degrance’s and DMC’s several points, and that’s just on this page), and there is legislation that prevents workplace hostility, proselytism, and discrimination. In addition, cites have been provided by Degrance and DMC, and others. Since you are having difficulties, let me quote **Tornado Siren** , who posted this in the last page: > [@](#): > > _Posted by Tornado Siren_ > Have any of those who have posted already EVER worked for the Federal Government? You get to listen to all sorts of speeches about how you should behave at work, and see all sorts of movies. One of the things they harp on and on about is that you should do everything you can to avoid the “Appearance of impropriety.” Impropriety of ANY kind. Whether it be fraternization, sexual harassment, religious harassment, or racism. It all falls into the same category. And what Ashcroft does definitely creates an atmosphere where the appearance of impropriety can easily be construed. Shodan, after reading this and several others like it–assuming you read them–you object to anyone even considering that Ashcroft may be doing wrong. The legal system Aschroft represents runs on the concept of litigation. There must be prosecution and defence. This message board is far from a courtoom, but it is interesting to note that it operates on some of the same principles (reliance on sound reasoning, support for positions, etc.). So far there have been several cases made for the “prosecution”, suggesting that Ashcroft ought to be investigated, and very few for the “defence”. I appreciate that you may believe Ashcroft is not doing anything wrong, but please pull out reasoning that addresses what we have been saying so far! > [@](#): > > _Posted by Shodan_ > So off duty isn’t off duty? You aren’t making any sense. Off-duty? The AG swore an oath that did not include office hours. When is the president not the president? Ashcroft may claim he is off-duty, but that is a claim unlikely to fly. > [@](#): > > I would say he was taking pains to keep his official self separate, both by holding the meetings during non-work hours and by being (as far as anyone here can show) scrupulously fair toward his staff, both those who attend and those who don’t. I repeat (for the last time, I hope) my plea for a scrap of evidence that this is not the case Right, you would say he is taking pains to keep his job and private beliefs separate by holding such prayer meetings as a fundamentalist, on federal property, as AG, with his subordinates, etc., etc. Were he taking the pains you mention so dramatically, Ashcroft would not be providing religious guidance to his subordinates, Shodan. He would go to his church to meet with those of his creed (which may of course involve his co-workers provided they were not in any way pressured to attend the church simply because the big boss does so), or he would keep his prayer private. Your argument on this point is simply shoddy. The rest of your arguments are based entirely on your belief that Ashcroft can do no wrong and ought not to be investigated in spite of the clear motive behind his actions, and that his actions are considered inappropriate and even illegal in a context larger than your repeated calls for detailed evidence (which will only surface once someone sues, or once Ashcroft is investigated for such suspicious behaviour). The examples you provide are (yet again) grossly inadequate to illustrate the situation. The example of bowling is plain silly for reasons that I hope are apparent. The example of gay/lesbian groups is slightly closer to the point; gay/lesbian groups exist because there is frequent discrimination against such minorities. In addition, such meetings are probably kept PRIVATE, and are not led by the AG. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/135 "2001-06-04T12:45:29Z")
Bear with me a bit here. This discussion also points out why I quit playing golf years ago. Now, I used to really enjoy the game. It had a certain thrill for me, as it does for millions of people to this day. Then I joined the Navy. How’d that cause you to quit, you ask? Simple: there were far too many people cluttering up the courses on the base who were there not to play golf, but rather to be seen to be playing golf with the skipper. They were asskissing. Given the public view of Ashcroft, Bush, and a few others in the Administration, it’s pretty obvious to a lot of folks (as indicated in this thread) that attendance at the particular religious event under discussion here can be seen as rewardable asskissing and non-attendance can be construed as punishable asskissing avoidance. Just my 1/50 of a dollar. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/136 "2001-06-04T17:47:23Z")
**Abe** You post two statements. One is that John Ashcroft is attorney general twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Whether this can be considered a true statement or not is a topic independent of how many times it is posted, but let’s assume it’s true. You also post that it would be acceptable if Mr. Ashcroft were to attend services at his church on Sunday morning. I do not see how these two statements can be reconciled. If Mr. Ashcroft has no off duty hours, he cannot be allowed to attend church during off duty hours (Sunday morning), either, as it might become known that he is Christian, and lead to the hostile work environment you fear. Since an off-duty-hours Bible study will be construed as proof of workplace discrimination (feel free to accuse him of commiting this if you believe it constitutes proof - it doesn’t), clearly off-duty-hours acts of religious worship have to be proscribed. So a Christian attorney general cannot be allowed _any_ practice of his faith. The post following yours brings up an example which is also clarifying. The poster mentions golf as a activity used by subordinates to curry favor with their bosses. I can certainly see that, as I can with virtually any interest held by virtually any boss. There have been many posts by many posters stating their belief that 1) the public practice of a religious faith necessarily leads to such currying of favor, and 2) is a major reason why such practice must be stopped. The Constitution, however, as I think we can agree, provides special protection to religious practice and speech. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, as has been posted, says as much. There is, therefore, a special duty of government to present unusually strong evidence when it concluds that a given religious practice is interfering with another’s rights, and must be stopped. The government must also present evidence that their proposed course of action (in preventing a citizen from exercising his rights to practice and promote his religion) does not unduly burden the believer. I think we can also agree (correct me if not) that it would be a moral as well as a practical impossibility to say that no boss should be allowed to pursue some interest in his off duty hours (if any) that might be used by his subordinates to curry favor with him, or that might be construed by his subordinates who did not share the interest, as a sign that they were to be discriminated against for not sharing the interest. Thus we could not, for instance, demand that a boss who was a baseball fan sell his season tickets because some of his subordinates would try to attend the same home games. We could not require an orthodox Jewish boss to stop keeping kosher at lunch, because some subordinates might eat the same foods to get on his good side. We could further not stop a boss who owned a large house from hosting parties for his employees at his house, provided he invited all his employees equally and took no action against those who chose not to attend. Are we in agreement on this? If you wish to draw distinctions or limitations on any of this, like the rules should be applied only to Federal employees, only to executive level or above, only to Christians, only to members of a political party other than your own, feel free to draw them, and add some justification for the distinction if you have it. The basic point remains. What evidence (there’s that word again) can you present that religion must be treated worse than a taste for stamp collecting, despite the special right of religious freedom explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights? What is so much worse about “We talk about the Bible - come and join us if you like” that it must be eradicated in a way that “The company is taking us all to a Yankees game” is not? I mentioned in a previous post the visceral reaction that some people have to religion. It strikes me as likely that this reaction is at the basis of a lot of the claims of hostile work environment caused by religion. People who have rejected religion seem to feel that the hostility they feel toward religion must be caused by those who profess it. I would not doubt that the feelings are real. But the First Amendment was put there to protect people from others with a very strong feeling that religion is something to be silenced and banned. And the more prominent believers are the ones with which they would like to start. Like - an Attorney General. Slippery slope arguments are not my favorites, but here’s one anyway. Most people would agree that religious practices should not be allowed if they interfere with your job. The trend seems to be (from many posters) that they cannot be allowed at the workplace at all, even during non-work hours. **Abe** has posted that for certain people, work is 24/7, and so presumably, they can _never_ be allowed their religion. I myself am a manager, and certain aspects of my job continue 24 hours a day. Does this mean that the Constitution does not apply in my case? I cannot practice my religion during work hours, and I cannot during non-work hours. What is left to me? And what is next? Thanks for your thoughts. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/137 "2001-06-04T19:40:27Z")
Shodan, The point is in Ashcroft’s case, he’s basically telling everyone “hey, let’s play golf & we’ll do it right here in the building.” It’s not his freaking building. ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/138 "2001-06-04T21:01:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > **The basic point remains. What evidence (there’s that word again) can you present that religion must be treated worse than a taste for stamp collecting, despite the special right of religious freedom explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights? What is so much worse about “We talk about the Bible - come and join us if you like” that it must be eradicated in a way that “The company is taking us all to a Yankees game” is not?** Because if the boss is a Yankee fan it harms no one if he makes it clear that the way to get access to him is to pretend an interest in baseball. But if the boss is a Fundie who has made it clear through public statements that he does not respect the rights of non-Christians it harms every non-Christian in the organization if he makes it clear that the way to get access to him is to be a Fundie to. No subordinate should ever have to either follow the bosses religion or even feign interest in the bosses religion in order to have the same access to the boss as his religious co-workers. > [@](#): > > **I mentioned in a previous post the visceral reaction that some people have to religion. It strikes me as likely that this reaction is at the basis of a lot of the claims of hostile work environment caused by religion. People who have rejected religion seem to feel that the hostility they feel toward religion must be caused by those who profess it. I would not doubt that the feelings are real. But the First Amendment was put there to protect people from others with a very strong feeling that religion is something to be silenced and banned. And the more prominent believers are the ones with which they would like to start. Like - an Attorney General.** I have not rejected religion. I am the most religious person I know. I just am not Christian. The hostility I feel for Christians comes directly from quotes like Dubya’s winner about Wicca not being a “real” enough religion to deserve constitutional protection. (cite on request) In other words just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you. Fundamentalist Christians have been trying to limit the rights people of my faith are able to enjoy in this country, rights that they themselves will fight for tooth and nail for themselves. I didn’t pick this battle, they did. Now one of their number is in a position of great power over my constitutional rights and he himself has created a situation that threatens the religious rights of any non-Christian in his agency. For you this may be some delightful hypothetical discussion but for me and mine it looks a lot like the first step down an ugly road. > [@](#): > > **Slippery slope arguments are not my favorites, but here’s one anyway. Most people would agree that religious practices should not be allowed if they interfere with your job. The trend seems to be (from many posters) that they cannot be allowed at the workplace at all, even during non-work hours. Abe has posted that for certain people, work is 24/7, and so presumably, they can _never_ be allowed their religion. I myself am a manager, and certain aspects of my job continue 24 hours a day. Does this mean that the Constitution does not apply in my case?** Hogwash! Ho one has argued that he needs to be non-religious. All we want is for him to keep his Evangelizing out of government offices and away from those who have to answer to him professionally. > [@](#): > > **I cannot practice my religion during work hours, and I cannot during non-work hours. What is left to me? And what is next?** You cannot hold religious meetings in you office for your subordinates either during or outside of work hours. It is as simple as that. Go down the street to the coffee house and all challenges disappear. So stop selling your straw men and address the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/139 "2001-06-04T22:50:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Degrance \* > Because if the boss is a Yankee fan it harms no one if he makes it clear that the way to get access to him is to pretend an interest in baseball. Actually, the boss would be liable to charges of favouritism in such a case. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2001, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538/140 "2001-06-05T20:02:26Z")
Monty writes: > [@](#): > > Shodan, > > The point is in Ashcroft’s case, he’s basically telling everyone “hey, let’s play golf & we’ll do it right here in the building.” > > It’s not his freaking building. No, it is not his building. But it is his free time. I am interested in the justification for saying that he cannot use his free time to pursure his interests, and to invite others to do the same. The analogy would be that he has, say, a standing invitation to his staff/employees to have lunch with him in the company cafeteria. If they talk golf, it’s fine, even if people use this as an excuse to suck up. If they talk religion (in a non-coerced context, and I have still to hear any evidence that anyone is attending to gain an advantage - Ashcroft’s chief of staff does not attend these Bible sessions), it suddenly becomes a major violation of someone’s rights, despite the First Amendment’s special protection of religion. In other words, unprotected free speech is fine, but protected is not. What sense does that make in light of the Constitution? I return to my example of the gay support group (make it Alcoholics Anonymous or Women in Technology if it makes my point clearer). Why is it fine for some minorities to meet to discuss their issues, but not religious groups? And Degrange writes: > [@](#): > > …if the boss is a Yankee fan it harms no one if he makes it clear that the way to get access to him is to pretend an interest in baseball. > > But if the boss is a Fundie who has made it clear through public statements that he does not respect the rights of non-Christians it harms every non-Christian in the organization if he makes it clear that the way to get access to him is to be a Fundie to. In what way? Again, I am asking for the underlying principle (and a justification of the principle) that religious practice, which is protected under the First Amendment, can and should be sanctioned, while baseball, which isn’t, should not - even though they have the same effects? Is it the fact that he has publicly expressed his allegiance to one religion? So he should be denied freedom of speech as well as of religion? Again, assuming (in the absence of _any_ supporting evidence) that John Ashcroft has ‘made it clear’ that getting access to him in his role as Attorney General involves sharing his religion. And my previous point stands. If publicly practicing your religion during your off duty hours means that others are automatically having their rights injured, then he cannot be allowed to practice his religion. And neither can any other boss, or Federal employee, or whatever group you feel must be held to this principle. In other words, religion is not protected, it is eradicated. And: > [@](#): > > …he himself has created a situation that threatens the religious rights of any non-Christian in his agency Again we have touched on the central issue. Is practicing your religion on your own time, with others who participate voluntarily, an automatic threat to the rights of those who do not share your faith? Is it also the case that a gay support group automatically threatens the rights of straight employees? What is the principle by which we can discern what is allowed and what is not? Why is it religious speech, and (in this case) specifically Christianity that is singled out for silencing? Let’s figure that out, and then by God we better apply it fairly. > [@](#): > > In other words just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you. Indeed not. However, a good way to figure out if they _are_ out to get you is to show evidence that it is not just your fears talking. In other words, to overcome the special protection clause of the First Amendment, someone somewhere has come up with proof acceptable to reasonable people that they _are_ out to get you, that someone _has_ suffered some harm from not attending a Bible study, or _has_ gained some advantage from attending. As I mentioned, the ACLU and the Democratic party would be positively slavering with delight at the prospect of winning a lawsuit that showed that John Ashcroft had discriminated on the basis of religion. But be aware that you will be asked to prove what you say. And not everyone will share the assumption that being able to detect that someone is a Christian is prima facie proof that he or she is a dangerous bigot. I am not a Wiccan. Working with a self-described Pagan is as close as I have ever gotten. If I worked for one, and she had invited me to attend a gathering of her co-religionists at dawn in the office next to mine, I would decline with thanks. If as a result, I suffered some harm to my career, I would take action as I deemed appropriate. But I would wait and see if this in fact happened before I started any (you should pardon the expression) witch hunts. I see no more reason to assume that witches are poisoning the wells or making my cattle barren than I do that John Ashcroft is plotting a new wave of Salem trials. Evidence that they do or that he is would be welcomed. Got any? Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ascroft-violating-the-separation-of-church-and-state/65538.md?page=8)