WHile reading one of the multitude of threads dealing with this subject, as it applies to prayer in schools “In God we Trust,” etc, ad nauseam, the question occured to me: What did these guys mean when they wasnted to seperate the CHurch and State?
I would think an overwhelming majority beleived in GOd (or at least professed to. They went to Church and prayed, and were in fact your basic God fearing Christians.
If you think about things like The Church of England (of which the king was the head,) and the roll of the Roman Catholic Church in Government, i.e THe Crusades. THe answer becomes clear.
They believed in God, they liked religion fine. What they didn’t like was the Church/state.
Having as prayer room in Congress was no contradiction. It was felt as necessary a part of life as the bathroom.
The fact that Congress also had a bathroom didn’t mean that we were ruled by turds, did it? (Orrin Hatch excepted.)
Quite simply it means that Government should only operate in a secular manner, and no religious institution should have a role in government. This is precisely because of the examples you cited: C of E and Roman Catholicism.
We wanted as little to do with England’s ways when we broke away as possible. In fact, the first couple of presidents frowned upon national holidays, seeing them as a “monarchial practice” in their estimation, and it wasn’t for a while where we had officially sanctioned national holidays.
As such, with so much anger at the homeland, why on earth would they want to be affiliated with a single church when many of them were persecuted because they did not want to have anything to do with the Church of England?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, one day, 23 hours, 36 minutes and 20 seconds.
4559 cigarettes not smoked, saving $569.92.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 19 hours, 55 minutes.
Well, it is important to remember that there has been a substantial change in some attitudes about this subject. The 1st amendment was meant to apply to the new National government, and was passed at a time when several of the states had intimate connections with religious organizations. I believe Massachusetts, for example, was giving direct financial support to the Congregational church at least up until 1833. The following is Article 3 of the original Constitution of Massachusetts
(The above excerpt was copied from here which is a generally good reference location for many of these issues.)
The puritans who founded Massachusetts were far more concerned with trying to purify the church and insure that the state support the correct faith than with an abstract belief in the separation of church and state.
Certainly, there were many who found the roots of political freedom in insuring that church and state remained separate (the founders of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania in particular were very forthright here) - but this was not supported by everyone at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, and I suspect that many who supported the first amendment may have still been completely comfortable with the individual states having a tie to particular religious (denominations | sects | communities | …)
Separation of Church and State is totally one-way. The State cannot sponsor a religion, nor make laws that favor one religion over another, nor impose religious-based practices on others who do not practice such religion. However, the people belonging to different religious groups do have a right to have a say what the government should and should not do relative to their lives and communities. It just cannot be held as the exclusive view.
As long as they don’t ask the government to act in a way which will show favortism for a religion over another and potentially infringe on the rights of others who might not be in the majority…
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 2 hours, 55 minutes and 34 seconds.
4564 cigarettes not smoked, saving $570.61.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 20 minutes.
Actually, IIRC, I think at least some of the founders were Deists rather than God-fearing christians. Franklin was, and Tom Paine was a militant atheist.
Basically the founders wanted to get away from not just England’s ways, but the ways of all Europe. A cursory reading of European history in the 16th and 17th centuries reveals such religious bloodshed that it is no wonder the founders wanted to seperate Church and State. The idea of religious liberty and toleration were found in many enlightenment philosophers, especially Voltaire. The founders drew much inspiration from these thinkers.
So if a religious group is prohibited from expressing their message in a Nativity Scene located in a government-owned public forum (where other, secular groups are permitted to express themselves), like the lawn in front of City Hall, is their “right to have a say” being violated, or is government just preventing itself from “acting in a way which will show favoritism”?
In real cases like the above, people who call themselves “Separationists” say that religious speech should be excluded from the public forum, because it gives the impression that the government is endorsing the speech. After all, it is not irrational to drive through town, see a creche in front of City Hall, and belief that that’s the message being sent, is it?
Those who favor neutrality would say that one group shouldn’t be censored just because their speech is religious. To do so would itself violate the First Amendment, wouldn’t it.
The American Pope example is easy. Real situations are more tricky.
Please correct me if I’m mis-reading what’s being argued here, but it’s not religious groups wanting to display their nativity/menorah/yule log that’s the issue. It’s the government, in this case, City Hall, doing so that would be a problem. And yes, it most assuredly would be a problem. They can have their say on property that they own, which is within their rights. As a taxpayer, I have a problem when they decide to advocate one religion over another. And that stands no matter the religion in question.
The issue is the government permitting private speech on public property (owned by the government), AKA a “public forum.” Several cases brought by separationists have sued the city/town/whatever under such circumstances, saying that by allowing the private religious expression on government property (remember, the hypothetical assumes other secular private speech in the same location at other times during the year), the government is preferring religion.
The point of my post was not to argue one side or another, just to show that one man’s free exercise and free speech rights are another man’s establishment of religion. Another example is the child in a public school telling his friends about his religion.
Right. Because when the town fathers put up their creche, then other residents, who don’t ascribe to Christianity have a tendency to get a little miffed. And since they are paying for the upkeep of that public property, then they (quite rightly, IMHO) feel that they should have some say as to whether or not it is used to further a religion that they may not agree with. As far as secular speech, what does that have to do with seperation of church and state? I don’t usually read about cities being sued because they let the local IATSE hold a rally. (As if) Or is that what you are referring to?
Fair enough, but from where I sit, it certainly seems that you’re getting a little overwrought about those who feel that SOCAS is a good thing.
Another example of what? I would be very interested to see a cite about a child being sued because of that.
Town X owns property in front of Town Hall. Town X lets the girl scouts put up a girl-scouty display on Date A. Town X lets the ACLU put up a sign on Date B. Town X then lets St. Whatever Church put up a nativity scene on Dec. 25. Town gets sued by insert anti-nativity scene group here because it looks like Town is endorsing Christianity. It happens.
I’m not quite sure how pointing out that competing values exist in what at first may seem to some a one-sided case makes me “overwrought.” Unless one-sided discussion is preferred.
Usually brought up in the context of a free exercise or free speech lawsuit: School censors/punishes child for speaking about religion in an assignment, presentation, discussion with classmates, whatever. School justifies their action with the Establishment Clause. Another example of the collision of competing interests.
Since the other organizations all have nothing to do with religion, it sure doesn’t strike me as odd that a town might allow the Girl Scouts or the ACLU (where is this town anyway?) the place to put a sign talking about a cookie sale or a… Sorry, but this "ACLU sign is a bit hard to fathom, so I’ll leave my analogy there.
Saying “insert anti-nativity scene group here” is quite disingenuous, I think. I don’t suppose it’s possible that a Christian who just might have a nativity scene on their own lawn in December might not want the government to show favortism towards them by having it on government property, eh? Some people respect the rights of others even when they are in the majority.
I’m sorry, but was there a cite here?
Yer pal,
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 21 hours, 4 minutes and 23 seconds.
4595 cigarettes not smoked, saving $574.39.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 55 minutes.
“Satan is not an unattractive person.”*-Drain Bead (Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!)
Not quite sure there was a point here, but if you were implying that there’s nothing wrong with allowing any private speech except for religious speech, then I’d have to disagree with you.
Fine. Change it to insert anti-private-nativity-scene-erected-in-public-forum group here.
Fine:
Duran v. Nitsche, 780 F.Supp. 1048
DeNooyer v. Livonia Public Schools, 799 F. Supp. 744
C.H. v. Oliva, 990 F. Supp. 341
Here’s some stuff on it, might not be what you’re looking for though. You won’t find many lawsuits of someone suing the child. You will find a number of them of the parents of the child (or whatever organization) suing those who they believe discriminated against them.
**
The separation of church and state was never intended to supercede one’s first amendment rights and it should not.
**
Well, while I laud this magical town where the Girl Scouts and the ACLU (?) are allowed to put up displays and signs, the fact of the mater remains that neither of these organizations are religious. So I fail to see what your point is.
Right. . .and the school is shot down in court. As it should have been.
I have yet to see anyone make this implication. Quite to the contrary, both Satan and I have said that if a religious group chooses to erect a nativity scene, then they are not only welcome, but encouraged, to do so on property that they own. If they wish to do so on the lawn of City Hall, then they are going to have people in the community who will fight them. Also, I would be curious to find out where this town is that allows Girl Scouts and the ACLU to post bills to their hearts content.
Well, **Ted **, I finally managed to take a look at your links and see them as follows: http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/05/2000-05-18-02.asp - N.J. school sued after barring student from handing out religious gifts
This would be a tough call to make. Particularly since the students in question were in kindergarten. Me, I think that if the other students are passing out candy canes without a ridiculous message attached, then young Daniel should be allowed to do so, simplistic story and all. However, students should also feel free to tell him where he can get off.
http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/05/2000-05-05-06.asp - Hawaii students reject plan to relocate tiki to back of school
Well, I suppose it all comes down to what the students intent was. If they were simply doing it as an art project, then it sounds like Mr Yamashita is making much ado about nothing. If, however, they intended it to be a religious icon, and offerings were made, then it should be relocated elsewhere.
http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/04/2000-04-27-02.asp -Church sues Texas school district for denying it use of school facilities
And in this instance, it looks like the school is overreacting. Particularly in light of the Lambs Chapel v Moriches SD case. And y’know what? I’ll bet that the court says the same thing.
So you won’t mind if the local Hindus pressure your local school board to get rid of beef, and allow their prayers to be read over the PA system?
Now that you understand that these places actually exist, and are not figments of my imagination, let me restate my point: If government allows any private speech on its property except for religious speech, this would itself violate the First Amendment, contrary to the protestations of separationists. I take it this is where we disagree. You would support censorship based on content (religious) of speech, I wouldn’t.
Actually, if you read the opinions I posted previously (sorry, no url), you’d see that the school won in each of those cases, all based in part on the school avoiding Establishment Clause concerns.
Rephrased: “if you were implying that there’s nothing wrong with government allowing any private speech in public fora that it owns except for religious speech, then I’d have to disagree with you.”
Which did not happen. The Capitol Square issue looks and sounds like the Klan was allowed to put up their cross. So what seems to be the problem?
Oh, you mean these: Duran v. Nitsche
This case, as best I can tell after trying to fond something that resembles a url, has to do with a class project wherein the students were to write a research paper with a topic of “The Power of _____”. The student chose “The Power of God”, which was approved by her teacher. In addition to writing the paper, students were also allowed to use, as one of their sources, a survey of other students’ views on their topic. The student in question developed a survey, which was not approved by her teacher because she (the teacher) felt that it needed more work. The student distributed the survey without approval, and was not allowed to make an oral report since the required work had not been done. The teacher did, however, allow the student to make her report to the teacher in the school library. The parents filed suit saying that their daughter’s right to free speech had been violated. So, are you saying that the parents were right? That the school should have lost?
DeNooyer v. Livonia Public Schools
This one I couldn’t find any particulars about. So if you have any further information, I would appreciate it.
C.H. v. Oliva
It has to do with a child in kindergarten having his poster (where he says that he is thankful for Jesus) removed and subsequently put back up.
While I personally think that the school overreacted in removing it in the first place, it was replaced once the teacher had returned. The boy’s mother felt that since it was placed in what she deemed a “less prominent location,” she sued. Do you think she should have won?
The second part of this suit has to do with the same boy bringing a Bible story to class to read aloud to his first grade classmates. His teacher made a judgment call that the story was inappropriate for him to read to the class. However, she had him read it to her in more private setting, and explained why she felt the way she did.
Personally, I wouldn’t care for a classmate of my daughter reading a Bible story to her and the other kids in her class. Therefore, I think that the teacher not only did the right thing, but went out of her way to allow the boy to read the story to her in a one-on-one situation. Again, his mother felt differently and sued.
