wryan@mindspring.com (Will) wrote:

:|

:|Thanks. Interesting read.

Thank you.

:|Rhenquist cherry-picked his facts, of
:|course.

And got many of those wrong.

:| Look into history and one can find almost anything done that
:|supports or destroys an argument. I don't think it's necessary to
:|challenge his "facts,"

Well, because this "dissent" keeps popping up from time to time, we did
feel it was necessary.

:|which are episodes and anecdotes, because his
:|logic is flawed.

Of course, members of the religious right's "choir" won't understand that
his facts, his position, his logic is flawed. That just won't be open to
even considering that, even as they read the rebuttal, if they read the
rebuttal. There has already been one (

:|He concludes with:
:|
:|" The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the
:|designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also
:|designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference
:|for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the
:|"incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via
:|the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well
:|from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its
:|history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause
:|requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and
:|irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from
:|pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian
:|means. "
:|
:|One can only wonder how the Government can avoid favoring or
:|discriminating against any particular religion without acting as if
:|blind to religion. I don't think anyone was making that case that the
:|government be neutral between religion and irreligion. I don't even
:|have the ghost of an idea what the hobgoblin "irreligion" is, and
:|Rhenquest doesn't bother to define it for us.

Irreligion is non religion

Irreligion doing a Google search produces this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=irreligion&btnG=Google+Search

Also:
http://www.bartleby.com/63/43/1743.html
Simpson?s Contemporary Quotations, compiled by James B. Simpson. 1988.

NUMBER: 1743
AUTHOR: Robert H Jackson, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court
QUOTATION: The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion,
it will cease to be free for religion.
ATTRIBUTION: Dissenting opinion in 6-3 ruling that allowed release of
public school children for religious instruction, 28 Apr 52
SUBJECTS: The World: Law: Judicial Opinions
BIOGRAPHY: Columbia Encyclopedia.

:|It seems to me that the
:|establishment clause does three things: (1) it forbids Congress from
:|creating a state religion, (2) it forbids Congress from "respecting"
:|any religion established by a state, and (3) through the 14th
:|amendment forbids the states or their constituent political entities
:|from creating relgious establishments.

Or respecting same.

Madison gave some clues to meaning in the following:

Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm

o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm

* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm

And of course the USSC defined it this way:

-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------

The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:

(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.

(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.

(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.

(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.

(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.

************************************
EVEN IF YOU DO AWAY WITH #5 WHICH is what Rehnquist
has been working to accomplish for 30 years, you still all the other
elements which would be and are still good law.

************************************

:|So, Bible readings before class
:|in a public school, no matter how superficially inoccuous, are
:|proscribed because they would be tantamout to establishing a religion
:|in that school district. That proscription would not be the State
:|acting in favor of "irreligion," (whatever that might be), it would be
:|the State acting as the Constitution demands, without respect to any
:|establishment of religion. What else s possible?
:|

And finally (grin)
From another reply of mine to another person:
************************************
The wording does not say:
Congress shall make no law making a state religion
Congress shall make no law establishing religion
Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion
Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion

What it does say is:
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, . . .

That is far broader.

***********************************************
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950) page
527)
***********************************************
. . . it is clear that the amendment does not say, "Congress shall make no
law establishing religion," but does say "no law respecting an
establishment of religion." It therefore cannot be construed as
authorizing Congress to support religious institutions. [or religion, any
kind of religion.]
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context. John
M. Smomley.Prometheus Books, (1987) p. 49

***********************************************
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
***********************************************
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law, Written by Susan Batte, Esq.

1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.

THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.

The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:

1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.

THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).

Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.

In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.

Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refers
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.

In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.

The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant only
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
SOURCE: Excerpt from Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
***********************************************

In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.

As expected..lots of subjective conclusions..not any addressing of the
Chief Justice's facts. No addressing of how Madison is on record
asking for the word "national" to be before religion in the
establishment clause.

On 10 Dec 2003 09:52:48 -0800,

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<571etvcsis3i8omqlu19qf97imbd0grsi6@4ax.com>...

http://www.google.com/search?q=Elbridge+Gerry,+%22No+religious+doctrine++shall+be+established+by+law.%22&num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=0

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Rehnquist%27s+dissent%2C+Jaffree+v.+Wallace&btnG=Google+Search

We are happy to announce the posting of a new IN DEPTH- rebuttal to that
dissent: Posted on December 7, 2003

Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jaffree: a Rebuttal
Rehnquist's dissenting opinion: Rebuttal
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/rebuttal.htm

Thanks. Interesting read. Rhenquist cherry-picked his facts, of
course. Look into history and one can find almost anything done that
supports or destroys an argument. I don't think it's necessary to
challenge his "facts," which are episodes and anecdotes, because his
logic is flawed. He concludes with:

" The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the
designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also
designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference
for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the
"incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via
the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well
from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its
history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause
requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and
irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from
pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian
means. "

One can only wonder how the Government can avoid favoring or
discriminating against any particular religion without acting as if
blind to religion. I don't think anyone was making that case that the
government be neutral between religion and irreligion. I don't even
have the ghost of an idea what the hobgoblin "irreligion" is, and
Rhenquest doesn't bother to define it for us. It seems to me that the
establishment clause does three things: (1) it forbids Congress from
creating a state religion, (2) it forbids Congress from "respecting"
any religion established by a state, and (3) through the 14th
amendment forbids the states or their constituent political entities
from creating relgious establishments. So, Bible readings before class
in a public school, no matter how superficially inoccuous, are
proscribed because they would be tantamout to establishing a religion
in that school district. That proscription would not be the State
acting in favor of "irreligion," (whatever that might be), it would be
the State acting as the Constitution demands, without respect to any
establishment of religion. What else is possible?


Will

As expected..lots of subjective conclusions..not any addressing of the
Chief Justice's facts. No addressing of how Madison is on record
asking for the word "national" to be before religion in the
establishment clause. No comments about the lack of atheistic defense
intent by the framers. No real analysis. Only face saving posts.