1995 #4
Message #8817 of 8820
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
Ken Childress Sep 7 1995, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: tx.politics, talk.politics.theory, talk.politics.misc,
talk.religion.misc, talk.religion
From: (Ken Childress)
Date: 1995/09/07
Subject: Re: Cancel religion from the first amendment!!??
In article <42kfam$...@allnews.infi.net>, I wrote:
[snip]
Since the title of this thread is about religion and the First
Amendment I
will throw something in here.
Ever since the Unamended Constitution was ratified in 1789, there
have been
elements that have yelled loudly that God, or Christianity, etc was not
mentioned in that Document. They just never could accept that the
Founders,
most of whom were very religious in their own ways, placed the concept of
separation of church and state in that document. After the Bill of Rights
was ratified and became part of the Constitution in 1791, these same
elements renewed their attacks. While the actual players have
changed over
the years, the elements to destroy the separation concept has never
ceased.
The desire to united Church and state by law continues. The present
attempt
to place a religious amendment in the Constitution is just another
example
of that ongoing "war." This is not the first time that a religious
amendment has been pushed. All of the others have failed, but the
coalition
behind this one is better organized than any of the others have been.
(Madison warned against such coalitions forming to destroy religious
freedom.)
Would such an amendment destroy separation of church and state?
Yes!
How would such an amendment destroy separation of church?
Let me answer that in this manner:
The Mass. State Constitution framed in 1780 and in effect when the
Constitution and Bill of Rights was rallied contained a Bill of Rights.
I will quote just two of the articles of that Bill of rights for this
discussion:
Article two of the bill of rights says this:
"it is the right and duty of all men publicly, and at stated seasons, to
worship the Supreme Being."
Article three of that Bill of Rights says this:
"The people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature
with power to authorize and require the several towns, parishes, etc, to
make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the instruction of the
public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public
Protestant teachers, in all cases where such provision shall not be made
voluntarily."
It is quiet obvious that this state did not have a separation of
state and
church. Somewhere around here I have a copy of the New York state
Constitution of the same time period. It was a state that had
incorporated
separation of church and state into law via it's state Constitution. I
can't right at this second locate it, but the difference is remarkable.
But our Federal Constitution does incorporate separation of church and
state and here is what it originally said: "no religious test shall
ever be
required as qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States."
That is it, no other mention of religion. Compare the two, do you see the
difference? That difference is the concept of separation of church and
state.
Really now, that's quite a stretch to say that because no religious
test is required for public office is a guarantee of "Separation of
Church and State." I see nothing in that statement that would
prohibit a town, for example, to display a nativity scene on their
courthouse lawn at Christmas, or a Minorah (sp?) for those of Jewish
persuasion. Do you?
Now, two years later the religious clauses of the First Amendment were
added to reinforce what the original Constitution had already
codified into
law.
Interesting conclusion.
Any additional amendment added that would require the government to
enforce
that amendment would once again establish the link between religion, the
force implementing laws designed to support and protect it, and the state
who would be required to investigate, prosecute, and punish those who
broke
such laws.
That is a clear establishment of religion, and respecting an
establishment
of religion.
How? The proposed amendments that I've seen are designed to eliminate
the suppression of religious expression that has been taking place by
numerous court decisions over the past several decades. Where would
the establishment of religion be? What religion(s) would be
established? How would your right to religious freedom be affected?
In addition such an amendment would then open the doors for lawmakers to
make additional laws regarding religion which they cannot currently do,
thanks to the establishment clause.
It would also prevent lawmakers from making laws suppressing religious
expression, which they currently do. Remember, because religious
expression may offend you and you would rather not hear it, doesn't
make it unconstitutional.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
