O'Donnell questions separation of Church and State

[AirPo]

Just a small nit pick but I believe they are not in fact a government representative until after they have completed the oath of office.

 

[Ringo84]

Which is all that matters -- what government officials say means nothing insofar as the law is concerned.

I would qualify this a step further and say when government involves itself in religion so as to force the public's involvement in any way -- this would include the use of tax money (which is, after all, public money) for religious purposes.

I appreciate your input, Nathan!
Ringo

 

[NotreDame]

Just a small nit pick but I believe they are not in fact a government representative until after they have completed the oath of office.

This would be an excellent point, except for the fact that we have a government representative citing the oath, the Chief Justice, at a government sanctioned event, for the express purpose of swearing someone into a government office. Your small nit pick is irrelevant.

 

[Ringo84]

An oath that does not include the phrase "so help me God".
Ringo

 

[Belk]

This would be an excellent point, except for the fact that we have a government representative citing the oath, the Chief Justice, at a government sanctioned event, for the express purpose of swearing someone into a government office. Your small nit pick is irrelevant.

Well, other then the fact that the person swearing them in does not use the phrase "So help me God" at any point. I'm curious why the fact politicians add this phrase is important to you? I admit I have not read through the thread so if you detail it out and do not feel like repeating it just let me know.

 

[NotreDame]

Which is a personal statement of faith and not an officially sanctioned part of the oath of office...Personal expressions of faith are not banned by Separation. It's only when the government involves itself in religion that problems arise.

The government is involved. You have the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, acting in his official capacity as a representative of the government, stating the phrase "So help me God." There is government involvement on this basis alone. In addition, we are talking about a government sanctioned event, in which the phrase is uttered by an official representative of the U.S. government, the Chief Justice.

Then your awareness is lacking, as the founders responsible for Separation did not believe that the government should entangle itself in religious affairs. I've already posted the relevant quotes that prove that.

Yeah I know...my awareness is so keen that I have astutely observed all you have are quotes, quotes which are ambiguous and vague, and do nothing to resolve the debate. Your argument is tantamount to the following.

Ringo: "The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce."

Person X. "Yes but what exactly does it mean?" What are its boundaries, what is or is not permitted by the phrase?"

Ringo: "Well, in letter number 20 written in 1788, and a newspaper article written in 1788, James Madison and Mason stated Congress has the power to regulate commerce."

Person X: "Yes I understand but what does the phrase mean, what does it permit or allow?"

Ringo: "Well, James Madison and Mason said it means Congress can regulate commerce."

Referring me to the writings and quotes of men invoking the phrase "separation of church and state" does nothing to illuminate what precisely the phrase permits or prohibits. Furthermore, referring me to writings and quotes of men whose reasoning is a mere justification for the phrase is equally problematic as the justification tells us nothing about what is permissible or prohibited by the phrase itself. All you have is ambiguity.

What I have is the actions of the men from the time. Their actions indicate their understanding of the Establishment Clause. The actions of these men regarding demonstrate the government did not have to be neutral in regards to religion but rather neutral in regards to and between denominations. And there is a difference between religion and religious denominations.

Another problem with your blessed reliance on the quotes and writings is the fact it is from a few men, and it is illogical to interpret the Bill of Rights entirely from the lense of a few men. Even James Madison, the man you refer to ad nauseam, rejected your approach! I find it ironic you defer to the man James Madison with a deifying reverance on this subject but not so much when the same man says your approach to understanding the Bill of Rights is problematic.

You said that the Bill of Rights and Constitution were a combined act of many men. Using that logic, I can only conclude that Separation and government non-interference is what a majority of the founders intended for the Constitution. Otherwise, such ideas would have never seen the light of day.

This is a non-sequiter. You cannot conclude what the "majority" believed, intended or thought on the basis of a few. It is illogical, every day of the week, to argue from the few to the whole or the majority on this basis and in this manner.

Furthermore, given the renown of Madison and Jefferson, it entirely possible these ideas would have persisted regardless of the fact most people, most Framers/Founders, did not agree. After all, the thoughts of the Anti-Federalists in regards to the U.S. Constitution were rejected, found not to be persuasive, yet their thoughts and ideas exist and persist to this very day. Furthermore, since Jefferson and Madison's thoughts were public expositions of their thoughts, and not ideas expressed on paper and then concealed away in a vault never seeing the light of day, it is entirely reasonable to think this ideas would exist beyond their time even if and where a majority in society or a majority of the Framers/Founders rejected their ideas, since their is after all a public record of them.

So this meager attempt to show a majority of the Framers/Founders believed or intended the U.S. Constitution to be interpreted in a certain manner on the basis the ideas of Madison and Jefferson exist today is bogus.

You're being deliberately obtuse. You're being deliberately obtuse. You said that the content of the Constitution reflected the wishes of the people. So if Separation is a part of the Constitution, then the people must have wanted to separate church and state and ensure government non-interference.

No, you are being obtuse, as you continue to miss the forest for the trees. So I will repeat it again so this time you cannot miss it. The phrase "Separation of Church and state" is ambiguous and tells us nothing, in and of itself, as to what is or is not permitted by the phrase itself or the 1st Amendment. Hence, repeating the fact people believed in the phrase, and its existence in the 1st Amendment, does not help, facilitate, or assist in knowing what exactly the phrase means relating to what is or is not permitted.

It does not, and it never has. The President of the United States could say, "so help me Dora the Explorer", and it would no more reflect the government's involvement in Dora the Explorer than it does an involvement in religion.

If he is saying it while operating in his official capacity as President of the United States, then there is government involvement, a point you continue to miss time and time again.

 

[NotreDame]

Well, other then the fact that the person swearing them in does not use the phrase "So help me God" at any point. I'm curious why the fact politicians add this phrase is important to you? I admit I have not read through the thread so if you detail it out and do not feel like repeating it just let me know.

The Chief Justice actually does say the phrase "So help you God," and this phrase is made during an official government endorsed and sanctioned ceremony.

Why is it important? The issue is what does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean? What does the phrase permit or deny?

I have contended the phrase does not necessitate government neutrality toward religion or religious beliefs, so long as they are non-denominational. My evidence is the long history of the government acknowledging or invoking a religious belief, such as the phrase "So help me (you) God," in the presidential oath, opening sessions of Congress with a moment of prayer by a chaplain, National Day of Prayer at Congress' request and the presidents issuance of a proclamation calling for a National Day of Prayer, invoking God in inaugural addresses by presidents, the U.S. Supreme Court reciting "God save this Court," before conducting business, and so forth.

These are examples, dating at or close to the time the Bill of Rights was conceived in Congress and ratified by the states, of government involvement with religion, specifically, government acknowledgment of a religious belief, government use of a religious belief, which indicates this notion of neutrality in the 1st Amendment is erroneous.

 

[NotreDame]

An oath that does not include the phrase "so help me God".
Ringo

The oath recited by the Chief Justice does include the phrase "So help me God," or the phrase "So help you God," and the Chief Justice, when stating this phrase, is acting in his official capacity as a government agent. Hence, we have government involvement. The fact the official oath in the U.S. Constitution does not include such a phrase is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? Because the government agent(s) is not reciting the oath in the U.S. Constitution but a modified version of it, by including the phrase "So help me God" or "So help you God." This phrase was recited by the Chief Justice when swearing in Barack Obama, when swearing in Bush junior and senior, Clinton, Reagan, FDR, Teddy, Lincoln, etcetera.

You can obsess all day long as to what the official oath in the U.S. Constitution says and everytime you do, you have said NOTHING germane to what I am focusing upon. Have fun with that red herring.

 

[Belk]

The Chief Justice actually does say the phrase "So help you God," and this phrase is made during an official government endorsed and sanctioned ceremony.

Why is it important? The issue is what does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean? What does the phrase permit or deny?

I have contended the phrase does not necessitate government neutrality toward religion or religious beliefs, so long as they are non-denominational. My evidence is the long history of the government acknowledging or invoking a religious belief, such as the phrase "So help me (you) God," in the presidential oath, opening sessions of Congress with a moment of prayer by a chaplain, National Day of Prayer at Congress' request and the presidents issuance of a proclamation calling for a National Day of Prayer, invoking God in inaugural addresses by presidents, the U.S. Supreme Court reciting "God save this Court," before conducting business, and so forth.

These are examples, dating at or close to the time the Bill of Rights was conceived in Congress and ratified by the states, of government involvement with religion, specifically, government acknowledgment of a religious belief, government use of a religious belief, which indicates this notion of neutrality in the 1st Amendment is erroneous.

Ah, I see. So how does adding "So help me God" to the oath show that the current interpretation of the first amendment?

BTW according to wiki there apparently are federal oaths that the phrase is a part of. It is also uncertain how far back the practice dates since it is apparent the way the oath used to be taken was by simply replying in the affirmative rather then reciting.

Oath of office of the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Grizzly]

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37 Translation from New International Version)

 

[Marek]

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37 Translation from New International Version)

One of my favorite Bible passages.

 

[Ringo84]

The government is involved. You have the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, acting in his official capacity as a representative of the government, stating the phrase "So help me God." There is government involvement on this basis alone. In addition, we are talking about a government sanctioned event, in which the phrase is uttered by an official representative of the U.S. government, the Chief Justice.

Just because a phrase is uttered by the President-elect and the Chief Justice, it doesn't mean that there's government involvement.

Ringo: "The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce."

Person X. "Yes but what exactly does it mean?" What are its boundaries, what is or is not permitted by the phrase?"

Ringo: "Well, in letter number 20 written in 1788, and a newspaper article written in 1788, James Madison and Mason stated Congress has the power to regulate commerce."

Person X: "Yes I understand but what does the phrase mean, what does it permit or allow?"

Ringo: "Well, James Madison and Mason said it means Congress can regulate commerce."

We have a legislative history of Separation that gives us the exact boundaries of church/state separation. They are widely available for anyone with the basic ability to perform a google search.

I don't really know what you want. What isn't clear about separating church and state?

Another problem with your blessed reliance on the quotes and writings is the fact it is from a few men, and it is illogical to interpret the Bill of Rights entirely from the lense of a few men. Even James Madison, the man you refer to ad nauseam, rejected your approach! I find it ironic you defer to the man James Madison with a deifying reverance on this subject but not so much when the same man says your approach to understanding the Bill of Rights is problematic.

Let's say that I cowrote a book with Nathan Poe.

You later read the book and had some questions about its meaning. Would you ask Grizzly or Blueapplepaste or Salida for their interpretation of what Nathan and I had written, or would you ask those who were actually responsible for the meaning they were trying to get across in their book?

I'm not saying that other interpretations are not worth considering. But if you want to know the exact intentions of a written document, you review the author's stated intentions about the document and what they say they intended to convey - not other people who were not involved in writing the document.

This is a non-sequiter. You cannot conclude what the "majority" believed, intended or thought on the basis of a few. It is illogical, every day of the week, to argue from the few to the whole or the majority on this basis and in this manner.

You said that the Constitution was the work of many men. The founders debated on what they intended for the Constitution to say and brought it up to a vote. Would Separation have made passed muster among all the founders if it was not a popular idea?

Furthermore, given the renown of Madison and Jefferson, it entirely possible these ideas would have persisted regardless of the fact most people, most Framers/Founders, did not agree. After all, the thoughts of the Anti-Federalists in regards to the U.S. Constitution were rejected, found not to be persuasive, yet their thoughts and ideas exist and persist to this very day. Furthermore, since Jefferson and Madison's thoughts were public expositions of their thoughts, and not ideas expressed on paper and then concealed away in a vault never seeing the light of day, it is entirely reasonable to think this ideas would exist beyond their time even if and where a majority in society or a majority of the Framers/Founders rejected their ideas, since their is after all a public record of them.

No...they didn't all agree. That doesn't mean that the founders were hostile to the idea of Separation.

The phrase "Separation of Church and state" is ambiguous and tells us nothing, in and of itself, as to what is or is not permitted by the phrase itself or the 1st Amendment.

What's not clear? The government shall pass no law establishing religion (declaring that we're a "Christian nation" or establishing religious laws in government), respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion (disallowing people to pray, worship, hold public office because they adhere to a certain religion, etc).

I don't see the boundaries of Separation to be ambiguous.

If he is saying it while operating in his official capacity as President of the United States, then there is government involvement, a point you continue to miss time and time again.

The President is not speaking for the government when he or she says "so help me God". That's not a statement of government religion.
Ringo

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's say that I cowrote a book with Nathan Poe.

You later read the book and had some questions about its meaning. Would you ask Grizzly or Blueapplepaste or Salida for their interpretation of what Nathan and I had written, or would you ask those who were actually responsible for the meaning they were trying to get across in their book?

I suspect some folks would ask whoever gives them the answer they want to hear -- and stop at that point.

What's not clear? The government shall pass no law establishing religion (declaring that we're a "Christian nation" or establishing religious laws in government), respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion (disallowing people to pray, worship, hold public office because they adhere to a certain religion, etc).

I don't see the boundaries of Separation to be ambiguous.

They can be ambiguous, which is why we have a judicial branch that interprets the Constitution to the best of its ability and looks at individual cases and determines whether or not the case runs afoul of the Constitution.

Those decisions set precidents which make later decisions easier. Personally, I find the Lemon Test a fair assessment of whether or not government's actions violate the establishment clause or not.

The President is not speaking for the government when he or she says "so help me God". That's not a statement of government religion.
Ringo

Even if he siad "God bless America" -- it's a statement, not a command.

 

[NotreDame]

Just because a phrase is uttered by the President-elect and the Chief Justice, it doesn't mean that there's government involvement.

But this has not been my argument, now has it? No. My argument has been the Chief Justice, while citing the oath, is doing so while in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government and on this basis alone, there is government involvement. In addition, it is being done on public property, by a government official, acting in his official capacity as a government official, by a government sanctioned event, paid for by the taxpayers' dollars.

We have a legislative history of Separation that gives us the exact boundaries of church/state separation.

A few points. First, the legislative history, prior to the existence of the 1st Amendment, cannot be conclusively relied upon as legislative history providing context of the Establishment Clause. Second, legislative history from a state, prior to the existence of the 1st Amendment, is not conclusive either in providing context to the 1st Amendment. I am not so sure it can provide any context to the 1st Amendment.

Second, we do have legislative history from Congress, and I have referred to it in regards to A.) Congress relying chaplains to open sessions of Congress with a moment of prayer B.) NDP

What isn't clear about separating church and state?

The phrase itself is not clear, just like the phrase "to regulate commerce" is not clear. What is commerce? What does or does not constitute as commerce? What does regulate mean? Similarly, what does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean? What does it prohibit? What does it allow? The phrase in and of itself does not answer these questions.

Let's say that I cowrote a book with Nathan Poe.

You later read the book and had some questions about its meaning. Would you ask Grizzly or Blueapplepaste or Salida for their interpretation of what Nathan and I had written, or would you ask those who were actually responsible for the meaning they were trying to get across in their book?

I'm not saying that other interpretations are not worth considering. But if you want to know the exact intentions of a written document, you review the author's stated intentions about the document and what they say they intended to convey - not other people who were not involved in writing the document

Poor analogy because A.) The Bill of Rights is not a book B.) There were a myriad of people who labored to compose the language for the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, C.) The Bill of Rights then had to be ratified by both houses of Congress, and no doubt this ratification was based in part on each representatives' understanding of what the Bill of Rights said and D.) The people then had to ratify the Bill of Rights, based once again on their own understanding of what the rights said, of what they were ratifying.

Once again, I find it nothing short of irony you show such deifying reverence for Madison's thoughts on this matter, until his thoughts are no longer convenient to making your point. You bow down and deify Madison's thoughts on Separation of Church and State, but when his views repudiated your method for interpreting the U.S. Constitution, you conveniently ignore his thoughts on this matter. I find it intriguing you are willing to bow down to Madison's views so long as it does not impede your ability to make a point.

The founders debated on what they intended for the Constitution to say and brought it up to a vote. Would Separation have made passed muster among all the founders if it was not a popular idea?

First, we are talking about the Bill of Rights, which were added 3 years after the Constitutional Convention, and two years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the Bill of Rights were A.) Composed by a committee on style in both houses of Congress, and then B.) Voted on for approval by both houses. Not every person involved in this process was a Founder or a Framer.

The other problem with your phrase above is you presume A.) Separation of Church and State is a phrase those who drafted the 1st Amdendment would have been familiar with, considering the phrase itself did not appear until later on, in Jefferson's letter, I find this doubtful B.) You presume the idea behind the phrase would have been familiar to those who drafted and ratified the 1st Amendment, not sure this is true but more importantly C.) They all had the same idea as Madison and Jefferson or most of them agreed with Madison and Jefferson's ideas on the subject.

There is no evidence C is true. Furthermore, while the idea may have been popular, the issue here is to discover the content, the substance, the form of the idea, to take the idea from the abstract and move it into the realm of substance, concrete, form, etcetera. Sure, they may have had the idea but the idea may not have been the same, which is to say one member's idea may have been entirely different from Madison and Jefferson.

So it is not enough to say they agreed on the idea was popular. The issue is, what exactly was the idea?

That doesn't mean that the founders were hostile to the idea of Separation.

I am not arguing hostility, so we can dispense with this point.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But this has not been my argument, now has it? No. My argument has been the Chief Justice, while citing the oath, is doing so while in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government and on this basis alone, there is government involvement. In addition, it is being done on public property, by a government official, acting in his official capacity as a government official, by a government sanctioned event, paid for by the taxpayers' dollars.

Which makes it wrong -- but the question is, who has the legal standing to challenge it?

 

[Ringo84]

But this has not been my argument, now has it? No. My argument has been the Chief Justice, while citing the oath, is doing so while in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government and on this basis alone, there is government involvement. In addition, it is being done on public property, by a government official, acting in his official capacity as a government official, by a government sanctioned event, paid for by the taxpayers' dollars.

There's no government involvement when the oath in question doesn't include the phrase.

As for the President-elect, not every phrase he utters is official state policy. The phrase is "so help me God" - not "so help this country's God"

A few points. First, the legislative history, prior to the existence of the 1st Amendment, cannot be conclusively relied upon as legislative history providing context of the Establishment Clause. Second, legislative history from a state, prior to the existence of the 1st Amendment, is not conclusive either in providing context to the 1st Amendment.

Why not?

Second, we do have legislative history from Congress, and I have referred to it in regards to A.) Congress relying chaplains to open sessions of Congress with a moment of prayer B.) NDP

The Congressional prayers is an example of government toleration of religion - not government establishment. So is "NDP".

Similarly, what does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean?

That the government (the state) and the church institution should be two separate entities.

What does it prohibit?

Establishment and endorsement of religion in government.

What does it allow?

The free exercise of religion: the ability to pray, worship, attend church, read the Bible, gather together as like-minded adherents of a certain religion, etc.

This is not that hard to understand.

A.) The Bill of Rights is not a book

You're being obtuse again. Of course it's not a book! But if you want to know the intentions of a book or a document, you return to the authors of that book and document - not random people who had little or nothing to do with writing the book or document.

B.) There were a myriad of people who labored to compose the language for the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment

Like whom?

C.) The Bill of Rights then had to be ratified by both houses of Congress, and no doubt this ratification was based in part on each representatives' understanding of what the Bill of Rights said

The founders didn't completely agree on the content of the Constitution just as we don't today. That doesn't mean that there are multiple ways to interpret an Amendment that is quite clear in its wording.

Once again, I find it nothing short of irony you show such deifying reverence for Madison's thoughts on this matter, until his thoughts are no longer convenient to making your point. You bow down and deify Madison's thoughts on Separation of Church and State, but when his views repudiated your method for interpreting the U.S. Constitution, you conveniently ignore his thoughts on this matter. I find it intriguing you are willing to bow down to Madison's views so long as it does not impede your ability to make a point.

There's no "bowing down". Madison was one of the authors of the Bill, and he should know what he meant in helping to write it.

First, we are talking about the Bill of Rights, which were added 3 years after the Constitutional Convention, and two years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the Bill of Rights were A.) Composed by a committee on style in both houses of Congress, and then B.) Voted on for approval by both houses. Not every person involved in this process was a Founder or a Framer.

Would Separation had passed muster if it wasn't a popular idea?

The other problem with your phrase above is you presume A.) Separation of Church and State is a phrase those who drafted the 1st Amdendment would have been familiar with, considering the phrase itself did not appear until later on, in Jefferson's letter, I find this doubtful

Jefferson coined a phrase to describe a concept that had been around since the debates over the content of the First Amendment.

B.) You presume the idea behind the phrase would have been familiar to those who drafted and ratified the 1st Amendment, not sure this is true but more importantly

It is true. Otherwise, Madison would not have suggested that the Amendment read, in part, that the government should not establish religion in his first draft for the Bill.

C.) They all had the same idea as Madison and Jefferson or most of them agreed with Madison and Jefferson's ideas on the subject.

There is no evidence C is true. Furthermore, while the idea may have been popular, the issue here is to discover the content, the substance, the form of the idea, to take the idea from the abstract and move it into the realm of substance, concrete, form, etcetera. Sure, they may have had the idea but the idea may not have been the same, which is to say one member's idea may have been entirely different from Madison and Jefferson.

There are several websites that strongly suggest that most of the gentlemen responsible for writing and ratifying the First Amendment were thinking along the same lines:

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Some early draft amendments to the religion section were: [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."

[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed," [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames) [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica]The final wording was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791.

[/FONT]


The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States


Also:

In the end, many supporters of the Constitution, including one of the most prominent, James Madison, agreed to support a bill of rights in the Constitution, if it could be ratified. Several of the states included suggested amendments, including rights of the people, in their ratification documents. The push was on for a bill of rights in the Constitution. Madison was true to his word — on June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison rose and gave a speech in the House where he introduced a series of articles of amendment. One concerned religious freedom:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
Madison's proposal follows the proposals of some of the states. New Hampshire's read:
Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
Virginia was much more verbose:
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.
New Yorkers had the same to say, but more succinctly:
That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Ringo

 

[Zlex]

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.

How does Congress establish a definition of 'religion', for the purposes of insuring that it is making no law respecting an establishment of religion?

If Congress can do that, then Congress/the state can effectively establish lists that have headings like "These things are religions in America." and other lists that have headings like "These things are not religions in America." As in, when I petition the state for 'protection' based on 1st Amendment establishement clause, and claim 'X' is a religion, the state refers to it's litmus test/lists of religions/not religions, and makes its prnouncement: "Your wish for protection from that religion that you don't even believe in is granted, the state declares that is a religion." Or equally, "Your wish for protection from that religion that you don't even believe in is denied, the state declares that is nor a religion."

The power to define religion for any purpose -- especially, the curious purpose of prohibiting the free exercise of undefinable religion anywhere in America, including in office-- is the power to establish religion.

The only proper response by the state on any topic that is claimed to be associated with 'religion' is "Religion? What is that?" (So...why does the undefined term appear so many times in the US Code, without definition????)

If Congress is clearly prohibited from doing any such thing, for any purpose, then that also includes, for the curious purpose of prohibiting the free exercise of undefinable religion anywhere in America, including, the public commons.

Including, for any purpose, including, insuring that it is not making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The de facto, implicit proof that every past Congress has recognized this very quandary is in the lack of a line in the US Code that says "the term 'religion' shall mean..."

If Congress is 'free to simply define 'religion', as in, refer to the dictionary or Black's Law, then ... why has no previous Congress ever 'simply' done that?

The omission is glaring. The efficacy of the 1st Amendment as an effective firewall of our individual freedom is(has long been)at risk because of this conundrum.

A political process by the state has been permitted to effectively 'define religion' via the selective abuse of the 1st Amendment for a purpose specifically prohibited the state. If our freedoms have been slowly leaking away over time, then this short coming of either the constitution or our ability to interpret and enforce it has been a major source of the leaks, IMO.

As long as we are confused about what religion is, or satisfied to relegate it exclusively to 'the spook corner' where our state now has it well defined, then the establishement clause of the 1st Amendment is ... a moot curiosity, next to pointless, as the state has long established a singular, national civil philosophy, and imposed it via force on citizens of the state.

If the 1st was ultimately about protecting us individually from a state running amok with national crosses and Easter eggs and ten commandment tablets, then... what was the point?

To me it is the freedom for you and I to answer, and maybe even ask, our individual forms of life governing questions.

 

[brindisi]

If the 1st was ultimately about protecting us individually from a state running amok with national crosses and Easter eggs and ten commandment tablets, then... what was the point?

To me it is the freedom for you and I to answer, and maybe even ask, our individual forms of life governing questions.

I think a case can be made that the 1st amendement is not so much about protecting us individually from the power of the federal government as it is about protecting states' sovereignty from the power of the federal government.


Opinion: Turns Out, O'Donnell Is Right About 1st Amendment


(Oct. 27) -- Newspaper and TV pundits bashing Delaware's Christine O'Donnell with respect to the religion clauses of the First Amendment need to do some homework on the topic, as they obviously don't know anything about it.

A good way to start might be to read the actual wording of the amendment, which O'Donnell's critics self-evidently haven't done, judging from the way they misstate its contents while neglecting to quote specific language. She is quite correct in suggesting that "separation of church and state" doesn't appear there, nor is such a construction justified by the well-documented history of the amendment.

What the First Amendment does say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- the "respecting" part being important -- a phrase that had a definite meaning for the nation's founders.

This stemmed from the fact that various states at that time had "established" churches (like the Anglican church in Britain), which signified an official church supported by tax money and exercising certain legal privileges, while other states had no such establishments and didn't want them.

When the First Amendment was drafted, Massachusetts and Connecticut both had established (Congregational) churches. These continued long after the Bill of Rights was adopted -- the Connecticut establishment lasting until 1818, that in Massachusetts until 1833. As the dates suggest, the existence of these churches was in no way affected by passage of the First Amendment. In other states, meanwhile, there was a patchwork of religious provisos, typically requirements that one had to be a professing Christian to hold public office.

Because of this great diversity in religious practice, there arose concerns that the new federal government might try to impose a "national" religion, overriding the customs of the several states. It was in response to this that James Madison in the First Congress (June 1789) proposed what would become the First Amendment. This said, among other things, that no one's rights under the new government would be abridged for reasons of religion, "nor shall any national religion be established."

This wording would be refined in conference committee among members of the House and Senate, which included Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both from Connecticut, a state with an established church. This produced still more sweeping language, saying Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion," meaning Congress couldn't adopt any law whatever pertaining to the subject. It couldn't, that is, impose a national establishment, but it also couldn't interfere with the established churches in the states that had them.

So the "wall of separation" then erected wasn't between government and religion, but between the federal government and the states. This was the point Thomas Jefferson would make in 1802 in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, saying that via the First Amendment the American people had prevented "their legislature" -- Congress -- from interfering in matters of religion.

It's also worth noting that, even at the federal level, there was then no strict separation between government and religion as modern secularists define it -- witness the existence in Congress of tax-supported prayers, chaplains and Thanksgiving proclamations, practices that of course continue to this day.

In sum, liberal teachings on this subject are a farrago of ignorance, bias and disinformation. Christine O'Donnell knows whereof she speaks about it, as her opponents all too clearly don't.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If I may...

When the First Amendment was drafted, Massachusetts and Connecticut both had established (Congregational) churches. These continued long after the Bill of Rights was adopted -- the Connecticut establishment lasting until 1818, that in Massachusetts until 1833. As the dates suggest, the existence of these churches was in no way affected by passage of the First Amendment. In other states, meanwhile, there was a patchwork of religious provisos, typically requirements that one had to be a professing Christian to hold public office.

Because the Constitution and Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government -- note the specific use of "Congress shall make no law..."

The States weren't limited by the Bill of Rights until the 14th Amendment.

Haven't I heard that some factions of the Tea Party want to repeal that one?

So the "wall of separation" then erected wasn't between government and religion, but between the federal government and the states. This was the point Thomas Jefferson would make in 1802 in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, saying that via the First Amendment the American people had prevented "their legislature" -- Congress -- from interfering in matters of religion.

And then along comes the 14th Amendment, and the whole playing field changes.

It's also worth noting that, even at the federal level, there was then no strict separation between government and religion as modern secularists define it -- witness the existence in Congress of tax-supported prayers, chaplains and Thanksgiving proclamations, practices that of course continue to this day.

In sum, liberal teachings on this subject are a farrago of ignorance, bias and disinformation. Christine O'Donnell knows whereof she speaks about it, as her opponents all too clearly don't.

So how come nobody's mentioning the 14th Amendment and it's effect on the 1st but one of her opponents?

 

[Ringo84]

I think a case can be made that the 1st amendement is not so much about protecting us individually from the power of the federal government as it is about protecting states' sovereignty from the power of the federal government.

That case doesn't pass muster when the founders' words are examined. In all the quotes I've provided in this thread, none speak of any attempt to protect state sovereignty of state-established churches but to protect individual religious freedom from government tyranny and to protect the government from religious tyranny.

A good way to start might be to read the actual wording of the amendment, which O'Donnell's critics self-evidently haven't done, judging from the way they misstate its contents while neglecting to quote specific language. She is quite correct in suggesting that "separation of church and state" doesn't appear there, nor is such a construction justified by the well-documented history of the amendment.

As I've repeatedly stated before: the phrase doesn't appear, but the intent of the phrase - prohibiting the government from establishing religion - is quite clear in the First Amendment's wording.

When the First Amendment was drafted, Massachusetts and Connecticut both had established (Congregational) churches. These continued long after the Bill of Rights was adopted -- the Connecticut establishment lasting until 1818, that in Massachusetts until 1833. As the dates suggest, the existence of these churches was in no way affected by passage of the First Amendment. In other states, meanwhile, there was a patchwork of religious provisos, typically requirements that one had to be a professing Christian to hold public office.

State-established churches were gradually phased out of existence as the First Amendment began to be applied to the states. If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to establish a church, it should be unconstitutional for state governments as well.

Because of this great diversity in religious practice, there arose concerns that the new federal government might try to impose a "national" religion, overriding the customs of the several states. It was in response to this that James Madison in the First Congress (June 1789) proposed what would become the First Amendment. This said, among other things, that no one's rights under the new government would be abridged for reasons of religion, "nor shall any national religion be established."

EXACTLY. And thus, the idea that the government should not interfere with religion - either by abridging the free exercise of its citizens or by establishing religion - was born.

It couldn't, that is, impose a national establishment

EXACTLY. All this time you've been arguing with me about the Separation of Church and State "not being in the Constitution", but you just produced the best argument for proving why the wording of the First Amendment implies a "wall of separation".

So the "wall of separation" then erected wasn't between government and religion, but between the federal government and the states. This was the point Thomas Jefferson would make in 1802 in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, saying that via the First Amendment the American people had prevented "their legislature" -- Congress -- from interfering in matters of religion.

Wrong. Jefferson stated in his letter: "Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his 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"

The government can neither establish religion nor prohibit the free exercise of its citizens.

as modern secularists define it

That's a straw man.

Congress of tax-supported prayers, chaplains

Chaplains should not be supported by tax dollars. They should, however, be allowed to pray in Congress. To not allow prayer in Congress would be a violation of free exercise.

In sum, liberal teachings on this subject are a farrago of ignorance, bias and disinformation

That's the pot calling the skillet black.

I see this all the time, and it boggles my mind: people say "there is no Separation of Church and State" and argue that the First Amendment says that the government can't establish religion in the same breath.

Not establishing religion and the "wall of separation" are one and the same. The government cannot establish religion because a wall has been erected that separates the church institution and the government. The government cannot infringe on the people's right to free exercise or establish a religion, and the church institution cannot establish religious beliefs in government.

This isn't, as the article's author claimed, a "liberal teaching" - it's what the gentlemen who are responsible for writing the content of the First Amendment meant from the word 'go'.

How some people can be so ignorant - some willfully - about this subject is beyond my understanding.
Ringo