O'Donnell questions separation of Church and State

[Ringo84]

NotreDame: some good information that indicates that the concept of Separation was a fairly well-known and popular idea:

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some highlights:

Given the wide diversity of opinion on Christian theological matters in the newly independent American States, the Constitutional Convention believed a government sanctioned (established) religion would disrupt rather than bind the newly formed union together. George Washington wrote a letter in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to state:

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.[12]

In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.

The concept of keeping church and state separate existed long before the Danbury Baptists letter, it seems.
Ringo

 

[brindisi]

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.

Which repeatedly has been irrelevant to the OP and O'Donnell's point. The issue wasn't, and isn't, the 'intent of the phrase' and the constitution, but, rather, the 'actual wording' of the constitution.

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

No one seems ignorant about this subject, but we do understand the issue differently. Some of us understand that there is a difference between actual wording of the phrase and intent of the phrase, while others choose to conflate the two.

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.

I would not have expected any of the quotes you've provided to support this understanding of the 1st Amendment since providing such links wouldn't support your point. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Perhaps the case for a 'federalist' interpretation of the 1st Amendment doesn't pass muster with you but that's hardly definitive. Your lack of acceptance of the theory, not withstanding, the case has nonetheless been made by law school professors.

A graduate of University of Virginia School of Law and active duty office in the Army' Judge Advocate General's Corps Handful of Sand: The Framers' Views of Restraining State Sovereignty is another who references law school advocacy of the 'federalist' intepretation of the 1st Amendment. His article discusses two different interpretations but references University of Virginia School of Law professor who strongly advocates the 'federalist' interpretation. The excerpts below are from the sections where the 'federalist' interpretation is explained.

Incidental to a discussion on standing in today's Federal Courts class, Professor Caleb Nelson presented a view of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause as a purely federalist protection. Under this view, the clause prevents Congress from both forcing or prohibiting a state from endorsing or not endorsing a particular religion. Likewise, it cannot declare an official national religion as this would preempt the states' power to choose their own. This would, of course, mean that the 1st Amendment would have no problem with a particular state, say Virginia, declaring that Episcopalianism is the official state religion. In fact, it was intended to protect that precise choice.

Now this is clearly not the present understanding of the Establishment Clause. It is now widely viewed as a protection of individual liberty, enforceable against both federal and state governments. Yet the federalist theory raises some interesting historical questions about which I have remained largely ignorant. Whether the 1st Amendment was originally intended to protect the states against the federal government, or the people against the federal government, the one thing it clearly did not do was protect the people against the states.

Under this view, the Constitution generally, and the Bill of Rights in particular, should not be seen as limiting the federal government so as to protect individual rights of the people from all regulation, but merely to ensure that such regulation is conducted by state governments. As such, these Framers' might have no legal qualms with Virginia having an official state religion, or New York imposing prior restraint rules, or Pennsylvania police conducting all searches and seizures without warrants. Keep in mind that this claim would not be inconsistent with particular Framers' opposing such laws on policy grounds. The claim is merely that they would not think it outside the sovereign power of a state to have such policies.

To the extent that these disparate approaches to the protection of freedom of religion at state level would be acceptable to the Framers', I think it supports a view that they were concerned not so much with a particular vision of individual liberties as with the protection of the states' sovereign power to make unique and independent determinations of how to regulate those rights.

 

[Ringo84]

Which repeatedly has been irrelevant to the OP and O'Donnell's point. The issue wasn't, and isn't, the 'intent of the phrase' and the constitution, but, rather, the 'actual wording' of the constitution.

We have the actual words of the Constitution to support the view that there's a "wall of separation", and we have the founders' stated intentions, which make it clear that they wanted to prevent the government from establishing religion.

So yes....intent is central to the issue.

Some of us understand that there is a difference between actual wording of the phrase and intent of the phrase, while others choose to conflate the two.

Really? Then what's the difference?

I would not have expected any of the quotes you've provided to support this understanding of the 1st Amendment since providing such links wouldn't support your point. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

There's an absence of evidence because the founders didn't want to prop up state churches. They wanted to prevent government - state and federal - establishment of religion.

the clause prevents Congress from both forcing or prohibiting a state from endorsing or not endorsing a particular religion. Likewise, it cannot declare an official national religion

Right...this is Separation of Church and State.

s this would preempt the states' power to choose their own. This would, of course, mean that the 1st Amendment would have no problem with a particular state, say Virginia, declaring that Episcopalianism is the official state religion. In fact, it was intended to protect that precise choice.

No...I don't agree that it was. When Patrick Henry wanted tax dollars to support a church in Virginia, both Madison and Jefferson opposed the measure.

Madison:

In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.

Madision's Memorial and Remonstrance

Jefferson:

that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Neither men spoke of any inherent right for states to establish churches, but the rights of the people, which would have been trampled had Henry's measure passed.


It should be noted that it was Jefferson's "Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom" which influenced the content of what would later become the Bill of Rights.

Under this view, the Constitution generally, and the Bill of Rights in particular, should not be seen as limiting the federal government so as to protect individual rights of the people from all regulation, but merely to ensure that such regulation is conducted by state governments. As such, these Framers' might have no legal qualms with Virginia having an official state religion, or New York imposing prior restraint rules, or Pennsylvania police conducting all searches and seizures without warrants. Keep in mind that this claim would not be inconsistent with particular Framers' opposing such laws on policy grounds. The claim is merely that they would not think it outside the sovereign power of a state to have such policies.

In other words, states can essentially do whatever they want, regardless of the Constitution? Bull.


If it's tyrannous for the federal government to establish religion, why would it not be tyrannous for state governments to establish religion?


This page provides all the references to the religion clauses:
References to religion clause in the first Congress

MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph, insert 'No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.'

The founders didn't intend for the states to establish religion any more than they intended for the federal government to establish religion.
Ringo

 

[NotreDame]

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

In and of itself, the phrase "So help me God" does not illuminate a proper understanding of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. However, when you consider the time in which the phrase was added, and by whom, the best understanding is made more clear.

George Washington added the phrase "So help me God" to the Presidential Oath after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, or near the time they came into existence. See Blomquist, The Presidential Oath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 1, 34 (2004).

The same Congress which A.) Worked on the precise language to appear in the 1st Amendment, B.) later voted in favor of the 1st Amendment, along with 9 other amendments, C.) subsequently instituted the practice of opening sessions of Congress with a moment of prayer by a paid chaplain and began requesting of the president a NDP (National Day of Prayer) and the president, Washington, along with Madison, and others, began issuing proclamations calling for a National Day of Prayer.

These facts, so close in time to the ratification of the 1st Amendment, provide us with an understanding of what those men, some of which participated in the drafting of the 1st Amendment, thought and believed was not prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Their actions, their conduct, tells us what they believed to be permitted and not prohibited, and this is undoubtedly only possible if they understood the very phrase itself not to prohibit or preclude their actions, or in other words, they understood their conduct to be consistent with the clause itself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In and of itself, the phrase "So help me God" does not illuminate a proper understanding of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. However, when you consider the time in which the phrase was added, and by whom, the best understanding is made more clear.

George Washington added the phrase "So help me God" to the Presidential Oath after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, or near the time they came into existence. See Blomquist, The Presidential Oath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 1, 34 (2004).

The same Congress which A.) Worked on the precise language to appear in the 1st Amendment, B.) later voted in favor of the 1st Amendment, along with 9 other amendments, C.) subsequently instituted the practice of opening sessions of Congress with a moment of prayer by a paid chaplain and began requesting of the president a NDP (National Day of Prayer) and the president, Washington, along with Madison, and others, began issuing proclamations calling for a National Day of Prayer.
These facts, so close in time to the ratification of the 1st Amendment, provide us with an understanding of what those men, some of which participated in the drafting of the 1st Amendment, thought and believed was not prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Their actions, their conduct, tells us what they believed to be permitted and not prohibited, and this is undoubtedly only possible if they understood the very phrase itself not to prohibit or preclude their actions, or in other words, they understood their conduct to be consistent with the clause itself.

So why didn't they make "So Help me God" part of the official oath?

 

[Belk]

In and of itself, the phrase "So help me God" does not illuminate a proper understanding of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. However, when you consider the time in which the phrase was added, and by whom, the best understanding is made more clear.

George Washington added the phrase "So help me God" to the Presidential Oath after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, or near the time they came into existence. See Blomquist, The Presidential Oath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 1, 34 (2004).

There seems to be some contention this point.

“So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded

The same Congress which A.) Worked on the precise language to appear in the 1st Amendment, B.) later voted in favor of the 1st Amendment, along with 9 other amendments, C.) subsequently instituted the practice of opening sessions of Congress with a moment of prayer by a paid chaplain and began requesting of the president a NDP (National Day of Prayer) and the president, Washington, along with Madison, and others, began issuing proclamations calling for a National Day of Prayer.

These facts, so close in time to the ratification of the 1st Amendment, provide us with an understanding of what those men, some of which participated in the drafting of the 1st Amendment, thought and believed was not prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Their actions, their conduct, tells us what they believed to be permitted and not prohibited, and this is undoubtedly only possible if they understood the very phrase itself not to prohibit or preclude their actions, or in other words, they understood their conduct to be consistent with the clause itself.

Indeed. As far as I am aware congress still opens with a prayer (though I believe they also now invite guest preachers of different faiths). I believe this is under the understanding that government not addressing religion in no way prevents nor prohibits personal expression of religion. In any case I will leave you to argue it with others as it is of only passing interest to me. Thanks for the explanation though.

 

[NotreDame]

There seems to be some contention this point.

“So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded



Indeed. As far as I am aware congress still opens with a prayer (though I believe they also now invite guest preachers of different faiths). I believe this is under the understanding that government not addressing religion in no way prevents nor prohibits personal expression of religion. In any case I will leave you to argue it with others as it is of only passing interest to me. Thanks for the explanation though.

I think you and I are closer in agreement than we are far apart. I will qualify your phrase "nor prohibits personal expression of religion" to say "personal expressions of religion done by a government representative, acting in his/her official capacity as a representative of the government, which ultimately means some part of the government is expressing religion/religious belief."

The fact it may be "personal" does not negate the fact it is the government involved and engaged in the expression of the religious belief. It is illogical to suggest a chaplain, opening up sessions of Congress, with a moment of prayer, on public property, within the halls and rooms of Congress, on the taxpayers' dime, does not have government involvement in the religious practice and religious ritual of prayer.

In all of my examples, the government is involved in the expression of the religious phrase, belief, or engaged in a religious practice. Do you actually think otherwise?

 

[Ringo84]

I think you and I are closer in agreement than we are far apart. I will qualify your phrase "nor prohibits personal expression of religion" to say "personal expressions of religion done by a government representative, acting in his/her official capacity as a representative of the government,

Agreed in the sense that the government cannot disallow a government representative to make personal statements about their religious beliefs.

which ultimately means some part of the government is expressing religion/religious belief."

A personal statement is just that - personal. If I worked at Microsoft and said, "I believe in God", am I stating Microsoft's official position on religion, or my own?

It is illogical to suggest a chaplain, opening up sessions of Congress, with a moment of prayer, on public property, within the halls and rooms of Congress, on the taxpayers' dime, does not have government involvement in the religious practice and religious ritual of prayer.

Government toleration of religion - not establishment.
Ringo

 

[Nathan Poe]

Government toleration of religion - not establishment.
Ringo

Indeed -- as hard as this may be for some folks to realize, an elected official is not a king. He needs to do more than say something in public in order for it to have the power of the government behind it.

 

[NotreDame]

Agreed in the sense that the government cannot disallow a government representative to make personal statements about their religious beliefs.

A personal statement is just that - personal. If I worked at Microsoft and said, "I believe in God", am I stating Microsoft's official position on religion, or my own?

Government toleration of religion - not establishment.
Ringo

The problem with the first paragraph is the fact it is not entirely personal but government involvement with religion and religious beliefs. The Chief Justice reciting the phrase "So help you God," while acting in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government, at a government created, sanctioned, and taxpayer paid event is not a mere personal statement of faith. Rather, it is a representative of the U.S. government, acting in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government, with the U.S. government creating the stage for such a statement to be made, and paid for by the taxpayers, in which the U.S. government representative is then referring to and relying upon a religious belief.

Now, if you want to assert this is not the type of government involvement with religion the Establishment Clause was conceived to preclude, then fine, and I will have more on this point immediately below, relating it to your analogy.

In regards to your analogy, the Microsoft analogy, I make the following remarks. I observe your use of the phrase "official position on religion" as part of your analogy. It seems readily apparent to me that your position is where the acknowledgment, reliance, preference, or use of a religious belief/phrase/ritual is not and does not constitute as an "official position of the government on religion," then the Establishment Clause is not implicated. Another premise of your argument appears to be government involvement does not automatically qualify as an "official position" of the government about religion/in regards to religion/etcetera.

As a result of those considerations you conclude, therefore, the Chief Justice reciting the Oath of the President, and reciting the phrase "So help you God" to the president elect, at an official government sanctioned event, paid for by the taxpayers, and acting in his capacity as a government official, and indeed being a government representative at the time, is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, along with the president issuing a proclamation calling for a NDP, or Congress passing resolutions asking for NDP, or the Court's invoking of "God save this country and this honorable Court." The assumption being, none of these instances constitute as "official position by the government" on
matter(s) of religion/religious beliefs/religious practices, although there is government involvement. This is your argument, is it not?

So my question is what would constitute as an "official position" by the government?

 

[Zlex]

The problem with the first paragraph is the fact it is not entirely personal but government involvement with religion and religious beliefs. The Chief Justice reciting the phrase "So help you God," while acting in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government, at a government created, sanctioned, and taxpayer paid event is not a mere personal statement of faith. Rather, it is a representative of the U.S. government, acting in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government, with the U.S. government creating the stage for such a statement to be made, and paid for by the taxpayers, in which the U.S. government representative is then referring to and relying upon a religious belief.

Now, if you want to assert this is not the type of government involvement with religion the Establishment Clause was conceived to preclude, then fine, and I will have more on this point immediately below, relating it to your analogy.

In regards to your analogy, the Microsoft analogy, I make the following remarks. I observe your use of the phrase "official position on religion" as part of your analogy. It seems readily apparent to me that your position is where the acknowledgment, reliance, preference, or use of a religious belief/phrase/ritual is not and does not constitute as an "official position of the government on religion," then the Establishment Clause is not implicated. Another premise of your argument appears to be government involvement does not automatically qualify as an "official position" of the government about religion/in regards to religion/etcetera.

As a result of those considerations you conclude, therefore, the Chief Justice reciting the Oath of the President, and reciting the phrase "So help you God" to the president elect, at an official government sanctioned event, paid for by the taxpayers, and acting in his capacity as a government official, and indeed being a government representative at the time, is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, along with the president issuing a proclamation calling for a NDP, or Congress passing resolutions asking for NDP, or the Court's invoking of "God save this country and this honorable Court." The assumption being, none of these instances constitute as "official position by the government" on
matter(s) of religion/religious beliefs/religious practices, although there is government involvement. This is your argument, is it not?

So my question is what would constitute as an "official position" by the government?

An "Official Position" on religion would be saying:

"Christianity is an established religion by the law, and by the law that is prohibited from being spoken by a state official."

Or ditto:

"Islam is an established religion by the law and therefore you cannot practice it, only Religion X can be practiced."

It's as if, when interpreting the words of the constitution, we let some apply a bias of religious intolerence, not religious tolerence.

Some have been so narrowly focused on the threat of a Christianity based theocratic takeover of our state that they've turned the gain on their 'theocracy radar' up way past MAX. It finds 'impending theocracy' in the mere public existence of anything that can be painted as 'religion' in the public commons. Total nonsense, like the appearance of the word 'God' on our currency. Or, this Chief Justice Oath example, for chrissakes. Or, me using the term 'for chrissakes' for chrissakes...

Christian Conservatives might not embrace religious tolerance in a secular nation simply as their freedom to worship as they see fit -- (please...just keep it out of the machinery of state) -- because such broad religious tolerance effectively equates theirs with the other 'non-true' religions, and all religions are in a political struggle to ascend to supremacy as the One True Religion. So anything that equates theirs with other religions might not be uniformly embraced.

Indeed. Does the 'real' supernatural God kick higher on the God-O-Meter then the 'unreal' supernatural Gods of Football? In their church, yes, they believe that. In a free secular state, they can believe that not only in church, but everywhere they exist. In a theocracy, that belief is given special weight and considerition in the machinery of state--which is not to say, 'simply permitted to exist in the public sphere,' but something deeper, with the force of law.

Some Christian Conservatives -- as well as the majority of Americans -- are a little confused on the topic of their own freedom to worship. Religious tolerance means we publicly smile at harmless references to the Gods of Football...and Gods in general. It is exactly that broad tolerance that renders them ... publicly harmless.

But others condone a specially focused public intolerance toward public displays of the Christian religion because of its historical position as a majority religion in this nation.

Let me point out what should be obvious:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except on the public square."

Wait a minute, it doesn't say that. It says,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Anywhere.

But, it has been interpreted as if it says the former, which leads to a conundrum. If Congress is prohibited from defining religion(a good thing), then how can it define 'religion' for the purposes of not prohibiting the free exercise thereof, anywhere? I.e., for whatever reason, including, the curiously discovered purpose of prohibiting its practice on the public square, how is Congress empowered to establish a definition of religion?

It seems to me, that on the topic of religion in this country(especially in this country), for any purpose, Congress is enabled to have one and only one response: "Religion? What is that? Sorry, can't define it, because to do so would be to limit and establish it."

Can Congress actually generate such a list? Allowed religions to the right, disallowed religions to the left, for whatever reason, including, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, even on the public square?

I don't think so, especially in the context of where it is found. In the context of an individual bill of rights. Somehere hidden perhaps? No, the very first sentence. In a nation founded on religious tolerence, I can understand why it was first. Religious tolerence: "Its OK that you believe in a boogey man, that belief does not hurt me in any way. Feel free."

Christianity: religion. By all means, keep the mearest whiff away from seat of power, control over the state. harmful to the kids in school.
Social Scientology: not a religion. Come on in. Praise Society!
Secular humanism: not a religion. The Protestants to the Social Scientology Catholics.
Thespianism: not a religion. Kids, enjoy the God masks.
Environmentalism: not a religion. Kids, tomorrow we study 'Gaiea.'
Football: not a religion. hail mary, regular Sunday attendence, Gods of Football notwithstanding.

You see, the high priests of state can apparently tell the difference between beliefs based on real supernatural beings and beliefs based on unreal supernatural beings.

Let me repeat that, because I selfishly love to say it. The high priests of state can apparently tell the difference between beliefs based on real supernatural beings and beliefs based on unreal supernatural beings.

What? It can? How? With the patented God-O-Meter? Silly me. But, that is exactly the basis of this impossible forever balancing act that we've let the state enter into: allowing the power of the state to be used by an endless line of petitioners claiming that beliefs of others based on real? unreal? supernatural beings is doing them great harm.

Is it necessary to actually believe in the reality of the supernatural being worshipped by others that is doing you great harm, in order to effectively petition the state as a minority seeking protection from the majority? (Hmm...atheists....no, not necessary.) Check, I got you. Then, I'm a minority who doesn't believe in the Gods of the Theatre who thinks that 'Thespianism' has no place in our public schools. I don't think those Gods are real, justy like atheists don't believe that the Christian's God is real, but precedent is precedent, protect me, I demand eqaul protection under the law from religion, ie, from that which Congress is not empowered to define for one and all, so please don't tell me that 'Thespianism' is not a religion, Congress, you are not empowered to do that. Not even the IRS attempts such a clear violation of the consitution.

Then, on to 'Environmentalism' and 'Football' and Sociology(Hell, that's an easy on, its still seminal apostles all but foamed at the mouth., in writing...)

Yes, an absurdity. Absurdity is often found around singularities, and legislation around supernatural beings and omnipotent concepts like 'God' is surely an area ripe for singularities.

 

[Ringo84]

The problem with the first paragraph is the fact it is not entirely personal but government involvement with religion and religious beliefs. The Chief Justice reciting the phrase "So help you God," while acting in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government, at a government created, sanctioned, and taxpayer paid event is not a mere personal statement of faith. Rather, it is a representative of the U.S. government, acting in his official capacity as a representative of the U.S. government, with the U.S. government creating the stage for such a statement to be made, and paid for by the taxpayers, in which the U.S. government representative is then referring to and relying upon a religious belief.

Do Supreme Court justices say "so help you God"?

And if they do, does that have the power of the government behind it, or is it a statement of personal devotion to truth?

As a result of those considerations you conclude, therefore, the Chief Justice reciting the Oath of the President, and reciting the phrase "So help you God" to the president elect, at an official government sanctioned event, paid for by the taxpayers, and acting in his capacity as a government official, and indeed being a government representative at the time, is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, along with the president issuing a proclamation calling for a NDP, or Congress passing resolutions asking for NDP, or the Court's invoking of "God save this country and this honorable Court." The assumption being, none of these instances constitute as "official position by the government" on
matter(s) of religion/religious beliefs/religious practices, although there is government involvement. This is your argument, is it not?

Must be, as the government is Constitutionally prohibited from taking an official position on religion.

So my question is what would constitute as an "official position" by the government?

I'm glad you asked me that.

No...seriously. It allows me to define my terms.

An official government position on religion would be the government - or a representative of the government - claiming that Christianity is the only way to God, or the government taking sides on doctrinal matters, or the government establishing religion.
Ringo

 

[SkyWriting]

.<snip>...The Chief Justice saying the phrase "So help me God," and the president elect repeating the phrase "So help me God" is government action, it is government conduct, and it is government conduct acknowledging a religious belief or referencing a religious belief.
<snip>

The government (any member of/or citizen) is allowed to acknowledge and or reference any religion or religious belief. In fact, all laws are specifically written just for that purpose.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

I couldn't find anything.
What are you referring to?

http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/DG07EffectsOfFourteenthAmendment.pdf
Getting the 14th Amendment Right - Reason Magazine
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT

 

[SkyWriting]

<snip>
(please...just keep it out of the machinery of state) -<snip>

Sorry. But it IS the machinery of the state. The point is that the Feds may not then turn around and influence it's free operation....for the most part. Just as secular humanism has it's influence on the operation of government, so will every other religious body. Official or not. There is no keeping "it" out. We (the public) are "it".

 

[JustMeSee]

Intelligent Design is neither a theory nor scientific. It does not belong in science class, especially in public schools.... Just saying.

O'Donnell seems to fail to grasp what a scientific theory is. She said it was not fact, just a theory. She has been given the elementary example of gravity MANY times (that gravity is just a theory too). Either she is stubborn or a bit slow on the take.

 

[brindisi]

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

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

I couldn't find anything.
What are you referring to?

I agree with Nathan Poe that the 14th amendment is important in conjunction with the 1st amendment, but disagree with him that no one is mentioning it.

The reson the 14th amendment is important is that it is the instrument through which rights, and restrictions on authority to regulate, guaranteed in the U.S. condtitution are 'incoporated,' meaning they are made applicable to the states as well as the federal government. A strong case has been made by many legal scholar supporting a federalist interpretaion to the establishment clause of the first amendment. This interpretation recognizes that the 1st amendment against establishment of religion protects states' sovereignty, not individual rights.

RUPAL M. DOSHI, Georgetown Law, J.D. 2009
Nonincorporation of the Establishment Clause: Satisfying the Demands of Equality, Pluralism, and Originalism

The application of the Establishment Clause tests has created widespread confusion among lower and produced a great deal of legal scholarship. In short, as one scholar neatly put it, the Establishment Clause doctrine “is a mess.” All of this confusion is both caused by, and obscures, the Court’s most basic Establishment Clause mistake: making the restriction applicable to the states. The Clause prohibits the United States Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Why, then, do all of the cases above concern state action? The original purpose of the Clause was to protect state religious establishments from federal interference. By restricting state power over dealing with religion at a state and local level, the Supreme Court has worked an inversion of the framework created by our Founders.

In order to understand why the incorporation of the Establishment Clause was a mistake, it is critical to understand its meaning at the time of the founding. Accordingly, this Note proceeds on the assumption that the originalist mode of analysis is most appropriate to deconstruct the Establishment Clause. ​

​

​

​

The Supreme Court has recognized the most appropriate way to understand what is an “establishment” and how it functioned in the constitutional scheme set up by the Framers is fundamental.

Further, because the principle was incorporated, the original meaning of the Clause should be construed from not only the views of the Framers of the First Amendment, but also from those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. That the Establishment Clause was originally intended as a federalist constraint on the authority of the national government is widely accepted. Historical analysis also reveals—almost conclusively—that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment did not anticipate the Clause would be applicable to the states, particularly not as a fundamental right.​

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do Supreme Court justices say "so help you God"?

And if they do, does that have the power of the government behind it, or is it a statement of personal devotion to truth?

More importantly, if the Supreme Court Justice says it, and the President-Elect does not repeat it, does that make the oath invalid?

 

[JustMeSee]

After apparently ignoring everything the scientist said, O'Donnell says that humans are being bred with animals making mice with fully functional human brains.

YouTube - Christine O'Donnell - O'Reilly Factor - 11/15/2007 - Mice with Human Brains - Full Version

Note: This is the complete discussion on a non-liberal broadcast.

This woman's ignorance in office could cause serious damage to science education and research.

But she does not lie:
1:00 marker
YouTube - Politically Incorrect August 1998 Part 2 of 2 Eddie Izzard

She won two counties against Biden... tied ... almost tied. It doesn't matter.

YouTube - Christine O'Donnell Lies on How Many Counties She Won in 2008 Race

Barnes and Kristol got drawn into this catfight because of a story in the Weekly Standard. On Sunday writer John McCormack reported that back in 2005 O'Donnell filed a lawsuit asking for $6.9 million dollars in damages for alleged gender discrimination and wrongful termination by a non profit called the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. In addition to sharing some eyebrow raising details about the alleged harassment, the article questions a claim in the lawsuit that O'Donnell was trying to "take master's degree classes at Princeton". According to the Weekly Standard, the lawsuit states: "Miss O'Donnell has lost the increased earning power that a Master's degree from Princeton would have created. In the future with proper finances, Miss O'Donnell should probably be able to return and complete that program…"
The problem? O'Donnell never took even a single graduate course at Princeton university, something she acknowledges to CNN.

Bill Kristol on Christine O&#8217;Donnell: No Sarah Palin &#8211; CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Politicians as usual.

 

[Ringo84]

This interpretation recognizes that the 1st amendment against establishment of religion protects states' sovereignty, not individual rights.

Individual rights trump state sovereignty - at least in my mind.

I'm more interested in protecting religious freedom by ensuring government non-interference and neutrality than protecting the states' right to override federal law with which they disagree.
Ringo