Jenkinsfan said:
Actually, freedom of religion can be freedom from religion. That is one option. It is also the freedom to have different religions, which you don’t seem to take into account. Not being Christian is not the same thing as being an atheist.
I’m suggesting you should pay more attention. The founding fathers did not print money with “In God We Trust” on it. That is a relatively recent addition, as the IGWT thread mentions.
I’m suggesting that you certainly cannot.
So far the “purpose of this thread” seems to be for you to cite official government documents that contain references to God and/or Christianity. You haven’t made a case for this “nation” being “blessed above all others”, nor does the fact that references to God and Christian thought appear in government documents prove a “Christian establishment”, just that some of those involved in the drawing of those documents were Christian.
I think that part of the point was that this “nation” was here before folks came over in boats, and I don’t think the previous residents consider the way things turned out to be very “blessed”.
I suppose you’re gonna say that they’re not “blessed” because they’re not Christian. Since a substantial portion of the citizens of the US are not “Christian”, the real “purpose of this thread” seems to be to declare yet again that Christians are “blessed above all others”, to say nothing of the diversity of our nation. How lucky for you that you just happen to belong to the group that is “blessed above all others”. I’m so happy for you.
Whether one thinks that absolute separation of church and state is a good thing as a matter of public policy (as most here seem to), people should not mistakenly assume that what has been said about the founding fathers and the birth of the nation is true. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was clearly understood as simply preventing the federal government from adopting an official religion. In fact, the modern notion of “separation of church and state” only arose in a 1947 Supreme Court case, which relied heavily on the writings of Jefferson, who was, admittedly, separationist. However, he was not the only person to have influenced the writing of the First Amendment and other drafts which would have created a higher wall of separation were considered and rejected. If we appeal to history, we should certainly recognize that there existed political conflicts back then, and that what counts is the outcome, not various arguments made for or against a position.
At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, many official state establishments of religion existed. In George Washington’s farewell address, he said that “Religion and morality” were the “great Pillars of human happiness.” Overtly religious Thanksgiving day proclamations began in 1775 (the 1789 proclamation occured on the same day that the First Amendment was passed). Even Jefferson did not object to worship services in the House of Representatives. (Jefferson said he was a “Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be.”).
Without boring everyone to tears, let it simply be said that the First Amendment was certainly not meant prohibit state recognition of religious aspects in culture. The honest proponent of an absolute SOCAS should base his argument on policy, and not disingenuously rely on false historical evidence.
Thank you for pointing out the historical basis for the First Amendment. It is my understanding that you are correct in your analysis. However, you don’t give any opinion as to whether the list enumerated in the OP merely “recognizes” religion or endorses it.
While “National Day of Prayer” can be equated with “National Broccoli Week” (mere recognition) what about some of the other items? Since Christmas is a national holiday Christians do not need to take personal leave in order to celebrate it. The government is clearly subsidizing Christian belief over others. (Note: I am making certain assumptions about how the government treats other religious holidays.)
While Christmas as a holiday may be a bad example (there is no way a federal employee–a judge–will strike down one of his own holidays), what about some other acts of government? When my town government puts up the Christ-in-a-manger scene on the front lawn of the capitol, isn’t that more than mere recognition? (Note: it is my understanding that the state governments are also bound by the 1st amendment). Let me also say that I distinguish this from many of the other cites in the OP. I believe that it is appropriate for the government to sponsor art, and I have no problems with that art depicting religious scenes, quoting from scripture, or having religious messages in the words to songs. However, a state government would be disingenuous if it said that it put up [most] baby-Christ scenes for artistic reasons.
Actually, I wasn’t trying to solve one of man’s great debates in 500 words or less, but merely pointed out the fact that arguing against the facts listed by the OP can’t be accomplished by a resort to that historical period, but rather has to be done by modern policy arguments.
But since you asked about the “manger” example, the answer is simply context. Does the town put up many other displays during the year? Does it have a menorah during Hanukkah, a fireworks display on the Fourth, a shamrock for St. Patty’s day? If so, sure I have no problem with the manger scene. It is part of American culture. Can government recognize culture? Of course. Should it recognize only those parts of culture which don’t have anything to do with religion? That seems a little discriminatory. Obviously noone should be punished because of his religious belief, but is seeing a manger the same as being burnt at the stake?
I’d just like to inject two quick thoughts:
1st – the First Amendment does not say to separate church and state anywhere, in any way. It says Congress shall not establish a religion. You can’t say ‘Buddhism is the official religion of Alabama’ or ‘Christianity is the legally official religion of Arkansas’. This just makes common sense.
State and national leaders and officials have freedom of religion too. If they want to say a prayer before a session of state congress, they should have the freedom to do so under the First Amendment. If they want to put a nativity scene on state property, they should have the freedom to do so. If people want to protest it, they should have the freedom to protest it and the state legistlators can decide if they want to cave or not. Based on their decision, if people are really offended, they can be voted out at the next election.
This goes for all religions. If Congress wants to invite a Buddhist priest to say a prayer, they should have to right to do so. If they want to put up a Buddha statue in the state capitol, they should be legally allowed to do so. Again, if people are offended they should protest and vote against them.
People in government exercising their First Amendment rights in no way “establishes” a state religion!
I heard Alan Keyes say something on Politically Incorrect one time. He pointed out how ridiculous it is to think that you are going to have such a problem being the only one in the room who doesn’t believe like everyone else (ie the whole classroom is praying and you’re an athiest). He talked about being the only Christian in a roomful of (can’t remember the religion) overseas one time, and it didn’t shake his faith one iota.
If you believe something strong enough, you believe it no matter what people around you are doing. I could totally be comfortable standing in a crowd of people praying to Buddha. If you’re an athiest, is standing in a room where Christians are praying really going to change you from being an athiest?
As for the feeling of being the minority … sorry but I say ‘get over it’. I’m a pretty huge minority on this bboard and I can live with it!
Second … does anyone here know of a website that has the actual quote by Thomas Jefferson where the phrase “separation of church and state” was first used? If you find it, please quote THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH where this was said. I saw it years ago. In context, he was saying the church should not establish religion. He was in no way saying what people are saying today.
**
A common stance for those who are against SOCAS, but not one that is by any means correct.
**
Peopel who are against SOCAS seem to like using 1947 as “the year that we become a Godless nation,” but I think it goes back quite a bit further than that.
In fact, it goes back to 1785 - pretty far back, don’t you think? Please feel free to check out [which gives a more accurate detail of how far back this principal, and even the phrase itself (which was first used in a Supreme Court case in 1878) has been a standard by which all courts have been held to.
Again, this is your opinion. The other evidence I deleted, references to God, were no differemt than president Clinton talking of God. Not the same as the issues we speak of here.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 4 minutes and 14 seconds.
4560 cigarettes not smoked, saving $570.01.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 0 minutes.
Visit [url="http://fff.fathom.org/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?"]The Fabulous Forums of Fathom](http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9111/simonds.html"this link[/url)
Yes, but that’s only half of it. The other half goes on to say “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In short, Americans have the right to hold any religious beliefs they choose.
As I said in my previous post, when the State puts a sign on the wall that says, “Thou shalt not have any gods before me,” it implies that those who do have other gods (or believe in none at all) are less American. Would you feel like you were being served by a government with a sign on the wall saying, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”? Or “There is no God, get over it”?
Can we please, please, please stop bringing the Founding Fathers into this, and debate the issue on its own?
Dr. J
Needless to say, FriendofGod, I already answered about how the phrase itself has BEEN the interpretation of the Bill of Rights for a long time now.
Now, allow me to ask you a few questions with your own criteria:
**
Great! Then let’s have a Wicca prayer which is around your impressionable little - let’s make him a fifth grader, shall we?
Or maybe we can lead your tyke in a little prayer endorsed by Joe Smith himself - That’s right! Your child is in Utah! Mormon country!
And maybe our Catholic friends might say a little prayer… To Mary! Would you like that, FriendofGod?
Would you like your fifth grader coming home to you and asking all kinds of questions? Would you like him to tell you that you ar wrong and his (friends, teachers, principal, whatever) is right?
Wouldn’t it be just GREAT is your kid came home and said “Shalom” to you - right before he rejected Jesus because those wonderful Jews told him all about how there is no such thing as a messiah who came!
And what if he demanded to be able to pray facing the Mecca five times a day? Care to drop junior off at your local mosque?
Now, do you want your fifth grader to do all of these things, FriendofGod?
**
Then maybe you might wish to look at the Bible you expound upon so much, FriendofGod. After all, I believe it tells of the vanity that public prayer is:
**
I wonder if your attitude would be the same in Salt Lake City, Miami or Iran?
I am not doing your research for you, but you’re wrong, and also, as has been mentioned, the current interpretation has been in effect for many, many years.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 24 minutes and 42 seconds.
4560 cigarettes not smoked, saving $570.08.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 0 minutes.
FriendofGod wrote:
Before the 14th Amendment (which was passed after the Civil War), states were allowed to have official state religions. The Amendment only says that Congress shall make no law, after all. I believe Delaware had one from its inception through the early 19th century, and no court declared it unconstitutional even after the 1st Amendment was ratified.
Many states did have text similar to that of the First Amendment in their own State Constitutions, but Delaware’s version lacked an Establishment clause. Only the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, which the Federal courts declared to stretch the restrictions in the 1st Amendment to cover State (and local) governments, made Delaware’s Official State Religion an impossibility.
Good heavens, it says “religion.” Not “a religion.” Religion, period. The Courts have rules that government cannot give preference to one religion over another, or to religion over nonreligion, time and time again. If the writers of the document had meant “a religion” they would bloody well have said do. The intent was to keep religion over here, and government over there, and let them never mingle, as to do so corrupts the best intentions of both.
To be perfectly blunt, not on my dime, they don’t. As long as my income taxes pay their salary, they can pray on their own damned time. I’m voting for them and paying them to govern, not to play Church Lady.
This is quite clearly giving preference to one religion over another, and is a no-no, at least as far as I’m concerned. The Nativity of Christ is in no way a legitimate concern of government.
Heck, I’ll quote you the whole letter. It’s in the public domain. For the record, the letter was written in the context of an exchange between Jefferson and the Baptists, helping the Baptists to resist Connecticut’s Puritan government (the First Amendment had not yet been extended to the States). Jefferson was a fighter for religious freedom, having drafted a Virginia law relating to freedom of religious practice, and he had called for the disestablishment of state religions and spoken against the commingling of religion and government. You in particular, FoG, might be interested to know that Jefferson did not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, or the Resurrection. Anyway, the letter, in it’s entirety, reads:
"Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
Y’know, if that was how it happened, I might consider backing down on some church/state issues. However, historically, that is not what happens when the majority is allowed to practice their religion as a state-sponsored function.
From the nineteenth century Protestant mobs burning Catholic churches in Baltimore or Phildelphia because the damned papists wanted to bring their despised Douai-Rheims translation to the public school bible classes
to the Fundamentalist family in Alabama or Arkansas, recently, whose children have been beaten up and house vandalized with cries that they are Satanists because the mother had the temerity to ask the question “Why are prayers being said over the school loudspeaker?”,
whenever the majority is allowed to “simply practice their faith” as an arm of the government, the minorities are generally persecuted.
Amen.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 3 hours, 1 minute and 17 seconds.
4565 cigarettes not smoked, saving $570.63.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 25 minutes.
Vist the The Fabulous Forums of Fathom
Let me try to clarify: Yes, there have always been strict separationists, including to some degree Jefferson. There were also people who wanted varying degrees of official government recognition of religion, whether it be of a particular denomination, “general” Christian belief, or a sort of deism. The fact remains, however, that the Bill of Rights was a compromise between these various factions. If we want to be true to history, that fact must be recognized. (Is that clear?) Of course, if you’re not interested in accuracy, I agree that there exists enough ammunition (if you ignore the other side of the debate, and the results) to fool people into thinking that the First Amendment was meant to promote your idea of SOCAS.
If during a debate on the legality of hunting waterfowl, Legislator A argues that all birds should be hunted, Legislator B argues that none should, and eventually Congress passes a compromise law allowing only the hunting of ducks, would you then say that you may also hunt geese, resorting to contemporaneous statements made by Legislator A? Methinks thou would goest too far.
By the way, the 1878 Reynolds v. United States case that you mentioned upheld penalties for the crime of polygamy, finding that the act “has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe” and was “in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Is that the authority upon which you really want to rely? Personally, I believe that that decision improperly violated the free exercise rights of those who might not subscribe to common Christian values.
(Note: the year 1947 is relevant because that is the year that the Establishment Clause was incorporated against the States–a particularly absurd result since the original intent of the Establishment Clause was to prevent the federal government from interfering with such state activity (there were official state religions until well into the Nineteenth Century)).
FriendofGod said:
I love it - you nitpick, saying that we’re citing language that doesn’t appear in the First Amendment, then you do the exact same thing! It doesn’t say “Congress shall not establish a religion.” If you want to argue directly from the language of the document, do it.
So, the statement is not as narrow as you wish to imply - the word “respecting” broadens the meaning, especially when read in conjuntion with the next clause.
It is also clear that whatever the individuals’ beliefs, they took great pains to keep religion out of the Constitution. There can be no better evidence of this than the inclusion of “The Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, and the conspicuous absence of any such reference in the governing document of our country.
First of all, it is ridiculous to assert that the first amendment was an attempt to protect state-sanctioned religious bigotry. It was quite obviously intended to stop that very thing in the only realm that the Bill of Rights had any authority over: the national. That the 1st Amendment originally applied only to the federal government is completely irrelevant in light of the 14th amendment.
I find it endlessly fascinating that the same people who insist that “original intent” is the only way to interpret the constitution (e.g. Chief Justice Rehnquist) are the same ones who pretend that the 14th Amendment was never passed.
You are simply wrong, as a matter of fact.
The major concern of the States (whose assent, after all, was necessary for the adoption of the Constitution) was to create a central government of limited powers. In the arena of religion, that underlying principle manifested itself in setting up a system which protected States’ own choices regarding religion. There is ample proof of this.
Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, that the “real object of the amendment was * * * to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. . . . In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife, and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armenian, the Jew and the. Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.” Story was not only one of the preeminent early Justices on the Supreme Court, he was a member of Congress and Professor of Law at Harvard. He was appointed to the Supreme Court at the instigation of Madison and Jefferson. His Commentaries are considered the fundamental text concerning the early Constitution. I could also cite plenty of other historical and modern evidence for this proposition, but I grow tired.
Historical fact can be ignored (feel free to run around in circles in front of your monitor with closed eyes and fingers in ears yelling “nya nya nya nya”) but if one wishes to educate themselves further on the subject, this part of his Commentaries can be read at http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm (section 1864 onwards)
**
I am not “ignoring” anything. I don’t see how providing a cite which happens to say that your “side” of the debate is wishful thinking is not “ignoring” anything. I answered your assertion with one of my own.
Now, as for “my idea” of what SOCAS is, my idea of it is exactly what the courts (you know, the Supreme Court, whose role is to keep the checks and balances on Constitutional Law and how the documents are interpreted to deal with modernity? Yes, that Supreme Court.) have said it was for many, many years now.
Seems to me that you’re the one with “your feelings” on the matter, as I can point to court cases which back up what I am saying. And in fact, I did.
**
Well, since it has the direct phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” and was considerably before the 1947 figure you mentioned, I would say that it actually STRENGTHENS my position here. After all, if they are taking culture into account and STILL go out of their way to mention Jefferson’s words in a ruling, this shows me they were serious about it.
**
You can “personally believe” anything you wish.
However, if there was any improper violations, Supreme Courts of various make-ups for the past 150 years have had plenty of time to change their minds and admit a mistake - this is not a foreign concept for the Court, you know.
Despite that, and despite hearing a ton of cases (and not hearing many more), they have always drawn the same conclusion.
Actually, you have it backwards. The states had official state religions because they were not told this was wrong as per Constitutional Law. All they did then was make it official. The fact is, state religions, though practiced, were and would be today unconstitutional.
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 14 hours, 54 minutes and 6 seconds.
4584 cigarettes not smoked, saving $573.10.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 0 minutes.
“Satan is not an unattractive person.”*-Drain Bead (Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!)
I’m not quite sure what you’re arguing against.
I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing with that.
Again, no-one’s disagreeing with what the state of the law was in 1878, 1922, 1947, or 2000. Simply that it is a departure from what the state of the law was in 1789.
Actually, they haven’t. They used the same decision as the basis for the modern understanding of the Free Exercise Clause in 1990, when they held that members of a Native American religion did not have a right to participate in their sacrament which included injestion of peyote. Another bad decision.
My response to Varlos explains why this is incorrect.
Yours,
jahn
Am I missing it or has no one gotten around to posting the entire first amendment?
“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.”
Sounds pretty clear to me, “no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If you can’t get separation of church and state out of this you just don’t want to.
Lots of great quotes from our founding fathers. Satan, and others, thanks for pointing out to FriendofGod that Alan Keyes is not an elementary school student in the formative stages of development, and subject to the pressure and drive to fit in. Neal Boorzt, a talk-show host and professed libertarian, often points out the real desire of those who want prayer in schools. They don’t want it so their own kids can pray. They can teach their religion to their children at home, in church and everywhere else. They want prayer in school so they can teach their religion to your children. To my children.
How can anyone believe it is right for a child to be legally required to go to an institution paid for by taxpayers’ dollars (unless their parents can afford the time and/or money for private or home school) and for that child to be subjected to proselytizing or forced to participate in religious practices that may differ from their own?