FOR "Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com>


When someone includes something like this

"I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history."

in their post they really should have a very good grasp of the history
they
are trying to talk about.

Based on the following your don't have that grasp of the history you claim
you are trying "to inform from the annals of history."

The "1st Amendment" didn't separate church and state
The 1st Amendment reinforced the separation that was embodied in the
unamended constitution.

if you don't understand that, you are going to be off trying to explain
the
religious clauses of the BORs

Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm

:|"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote:

:|When Madison first proposed the First Amendment on June 8th, 1789 it
read:
:|

:|"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. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right
to
:|speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments"
:|
:|When the First Amendment was reported by the House Select Committee on
July
:|28, 1789 it read:
:|
:|"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
:|conscience be infringed"
:|
:|When the First Amendment was passed by the House of Representatives on
:|August 24, 1789 it read:
:|
:|"Congrass shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the
free
:|exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
:|
:|When the First Amendment was passed by the Senate on September 9, 1789
it
:|read:
:|
:|"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of
:|worship, or prohibiting the free exercis of religion, or abridging the
:|freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably
to
:|assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of
grievances."
:|
:|When Congress passed the First Amendment on September 25, 1789 it read:
:|
:|"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."
:|
:|All during this process what we know as the First Amendment was actually
the
:|Third Amendment for most of the period and even the Fourth Amendment for
a
:|short time.

The Religious clauses which is the subject here was always the 3rd Article
Would you mind citing when they were the 4th Article?

What makes up the modern day 1st Amendment were two separate articles in
the First Federal Congress (First Session) However, as the original first
Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789

FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY SEE:
The following excerpts have been selected from the records of the First
Federal Congress debates on the Constitutional Amendments. These are the
only references regarding what eventually became the religious freedom
clause of the First Amendment.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm

ALSO:

The Legislative History of the Establishment Clause:

Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
From The House of Representatives

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
beliefs, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the
full
and equal rights of conscience in any manner or in any respect be
infringed."
(Civil rights, establishment, rights of conscience, broad word
establishment used )
Not accepted

"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed."
(Establishment and conscience, broad word establishment used)
Not accepted

"Congress shall make no laws touching religion , or infringing the
rights of conscience."
(Establishment and conscience, broad word establishment used)
Not accepted

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
(Establishment, free exercise, conscience, broad word establishment
used)
Not accepted

Submitted to the Senate:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(Establishment, free exercise, conscience, broad word establishment
used)
Not accepted

"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society
in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed"
(Establishment of a preference, conscience, narrow non preference use
of establishment)
Not accepted

"Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience,
or establishing any religious sect or society."
(establishment of a preference, conscience, narrow non preference use
of establishment)
Not accepted

"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of
religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(preference establishment, free exercise, conscience, narrow use of non
preference reference to establishment)
Not accepted

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
(Establishment, free exercise, back to broad use of establishment)
Not accepted

Submitted Back to the House:

"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of
worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
(establishing preference, free exercise, back to narrow non preference
use of the word establishment)
Not accepted

Joint House/senate Language:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
(establishment, free exercise, back to broad)
Accepted.

What can be said with any degree of certainty?

We do know for sure that it was to prevent the later use of the
"necessary and proper" wording from being used as a doorway to make laws
regarding religion. We know that because Madison mentions that.

We do know that it was to prevent a sects, denominations, religions
from combining and establishing religions, forcing others to go along with
the program. We know that again because Madison mentions it.

We know the obvious, that is it was meant to prevent the government
from establishing religion, a religion, a sect, a denomination as the
"official" religion of the nation.

We also know that Congress was prevented from making an law RESPECTING
an establishment of religion. We know that because those words were
eventually chosen to be used.

We know that several non preferential proposals were made and all lost
out to the more broad, less defined word establishment, but even that word
did have meaning that applied in this country.

"Of the eleven states that ratified the 1st Amendment, nine (counting
Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and churches
should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to religion
constituted an establishment of religion."

Source of Information

The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the
First
Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.

House Rejected the Senate Version, Senate Would Not Accept The House
Version, Thus Six men, in a joint House-Senate Committee, with no records
of their discussions, debates, arguments, votes, etc took this:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent
the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

and this

"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a
mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

and created this:

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

The joint committee left no records of their deliberations. The full
House nor Senate never voted on the Joint House-Senate Committee's final
draft. The congressional action was completed. That final draft became the
Religious Clauses of the Bill of Rights

The six men on that committee were

From the House

Chairman Madison

Sherman

Vining

From the Senate

Chairman Ellsworth

Carroll

Paterson

September, 10-19,1789--First Federal Congress (Amendments)

Commentary

On September 10, 17&19, the House received the Senate's message that it
had agreed to the House amendments, "with several amendments; to which
they
desire the concurrence of this House." The House considered the subject on
September 19 and 21. On the latter date, they voted on the Senate changes.
"some of which they agreed to, and disagreed to others." The House then
resolved that "a committee of conference was desired with the Senate, on
the subject matter of the amendments disagreed to." Madison, Sherman, and
Vining (the three members who had played the largest part in the House
debate) were appointed managers on the part of the House, and Oliver

Ellsworth, Charles Carroll, and William Paterson as Senate conferees.
Some of the problems dealt with by the conferees may be seen in Madison's
letter to Pendleton (Sept 23, 1789).[see below]

On September 23. Madison made the Conference Report to the House. It
provided that the House would accept all the Senate amendments, and
provided for three further changes. The first was a minor alteration in
the
amendment on representation. The third gave the final form to the Sixth
Amendment and reincluded in it the right to a jury trial of the locality
(though not restricted to the vicinage) which the Senate had omitted. The
second change made by the Conference Committee was of great importance--to
replace the weakened Senate version of the religious freedom guarantee by
the simple yet strict prohibitions of what are now the Establishment and
Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Without a doubt, this final
version of the first guarantee of the First Amendment was written by
Madison; it repeats his earlier House version which the Senate had
diluted.
As Irving Brant puts it, "Of all the versions of the religious guarantee,
this most directly covered the thing he was aiming at--absolute separation
of church and state and total exclusion of government aid to religion."
Madison's success in having the Conference Committee adopt his version of
the religious freedom guarantee marked a fitting culmination of his role
in
the Bill of Rights debate.

On September 24, the House voted 37 to 14 to agree to the Conference
Report. On the same day, Ellsworth made the Conference Report to the
Senate. The next day, the Senate concurred in the amendments as voted by
the House and acquiesced in a House resolution requesting the President to
transmit copies of the amendments to the states. September 25 (the day on
which the congressional approval was completed) is celebrated as the
anniversary of the Bill of Rights. The form in which the amendments
finally
passed Congress appears (infra p. 1164). Apart from the first two Articles
(which failed of state ratification), these amendments (renumbered to
reflect the non-ratification of the first two) now constitute the federal
Bill of Rights.

Source of Information

The Bill Of Rights: A Documentary History, Vol. II, Bernard Schwartz,
Chelsea House Publishers, in association with McGraw Hill Book Company,
N.Y. Toronto, London, Sydney (1971) pp 1159.
************************************************************************
Madison to Pendleton, 1789*

Sept. 23, 1789

Dear Sir,

The pressure of unfinished business has suspended the adjournment of
Congs. till Saturday next. Among the articles which required it was the
plan of amendments, on which the two Houses so far disagreed as to require
conferences. It will be impossible I find to prevail on the Senate to
concur in the limitation on the value of appeals to the Supreme Court,
which they say is unnecessary, and might be embarrassing in questions of
national or Constitutional importance in their principle, tho' of small
pecuniary amount. They are equally inflexible in opposing a definition of
the locality of Juries. The vicinage they contend is either too vague or
too strict a term, too vague if depending on limits to be fixed by the
pleasure of the law, too strict if limited to the County. It was proposed
to insert after the word Juries, "with the accustomed requisites," leaving
the definition to be construed according to the judgment of professional
men. Even this could not be obtained. The truth is that in most of the
States the practice is different, and hence the irreconcileable difference
of ideas on the subject. In some States, jurors are drawn from the whole
body of the community indiscriminately; in others, from large districts
comprehending a number of Counties; and in a few only from a single
County.
The Senate suppose also that the provision for vicinage in the Judiciary
bill, will sufficiently quiet the fears which called for an amendment on
this point. On a few other points in the plan the Senate refuse to join
the
House of Reps.

*The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 5, p. 424.

As far as I am aware, only one of those six men ever wrote anything about
intent, meaning etc of those clauses and that man was Madison.

Thus, what that man said would shed some light on what those words were
supposed to have meant: how broad or narrow those words should be applied,
i.e. to only prevent the establishment of a "national" religion (what did
Madison mean when he used the word national), or only to prevent the rise
of one Protestant Christian denomination over other Protestant Christian
denominations, or to only prevent an establishment of religion, or to
allow
non-preferential aid and support to religion/religions equally, or to
truly
separate religion (church) and Govt (state)

Part II
Some Contemporary Evidence that Church State separation was accomplished
by
the unamended constitution

1789
Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State, September 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm

Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses Only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State:

* No Power to Congress Over Religion. The Separation Clause, Article IV
Paragraph III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm

* No Power to Congress over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and the 1st
Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm

:|The two amendments were not ratified
:|by the states, they were dropped, moving the current First Amendment to
the
:|top of the list.
:|
:|The original intent of the First Amendment could not be clearer.

FALSE

FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY SEE:

********************************************
SEPTEMBER 13, 1789 (Amendments)

Your letter of the 8th Ulto. has lain long unanswered because I have been
absorbed about the Amendments to the Constitution. They have at length
passed the Senate, with difficulty, after being much mutilated and
enfeebled---
Source: Richard Henry Lee to Francis Lightfoot Lee, 13 September 1789,
Morristown National Historical Park, New Jersey.
______________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 14, 1789 (Amendments)

Whether the present constitution will preserve its theoretical ballance,
for I consider it altogether as a political experiment, if it should, what
will be the effect, or if it should not, to what system it will verge, are
secrets that can only be unfolded by time: as to the amendments proposed
by
Congress, they will not affect those questions or serve any other purposes
than to reconcile those who had no adequate idea of the essential defects
of the Constitution. . . .
Source: Elbridge Gerry to John Wendell, 14 September 1789, Fogg Autograph
Collection, Maine Historical Society.
_______________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 14, 1789 (Amendments)

[I have) since waited to see the issue of the proposed amendts. to the
Constitution, that I might give you the most [exact] account of that
business. As they came from the H. of R. they were very far short of the
wishes of our Convention, but as they are returned by the Senate they are
certainly much weakened. You may be assured that nothing on my part was
left undone to prevent this, and every possible effort was used to give
success to all the Amendments proposed by our Country--We might as
well have attempted to move Mount Atlas upon our shoulders--In fact, the
idea of subsequent Amendments was delusion altogether, and so intended by
the greater part of those who arrogated to themselves the name of
Federalists. . .

. . . The preamble to the Amendments is realy curious--A careless reader
would be apt to suppose that the amendments desired by the States had been
graciously granted. But when the thing done is compared with that desired,
nothing can be more unlike.

By comparing the Senate amendments with [those] from below by carefully
attending to the m[atter] the former will appear well calculated to
enfeeble [and] produce ambiguity--for instance--Rights res[erved] to the
States or the People--The people here is evidently designed fo[r the]
People of the United Slates, not of the Individual States [page torn] the
former is the Constitutional idea of the people--We the People &c. It was
affirmed the Rights reserved by the States bills of rights did not belong
to the States--I observed that then they belonged to the people of the
States, but that this mode of expressing was evidently calculated to give
the Residuum to the people of the U. Stares, which was the Constitutional
language, and to deny it to the people of the Indiv. State--At least that
it left room for cavil & false construction--They would not insert after
people thereof--altho it was moved.
Source: Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 14 September 1789, Patrick
Henry Papers, DLC. Words in brackets are taken from historian Charles
Campbell's pre-Civil War transcript in the Hugh Plait Grigsby Papers,
Virginia Historical Society.
_____________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 15, 1789 (Amendments)

The Amendments too have been amended by the Senate, & many In our house,
Mr. Madison, in particular, thinks, that they have lost much of their
sedative Virtue by the alteration. A contest on this subject between the
two houses would be very disagreeable.
Source: Fisher Ames to Caleb Strong, 15 September 1789, Thompson Autograph
Collection, Hartford Seminary Foundation.
______________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 27, 1789 (Amendments)

My third letter to you on the 14th. inst. will satisfy you how little is
to
be expected from Congress that shall be any ways satisfactory on the
subject of Amendments.. . . The English language has been carefully culled
to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!
Source: Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 27 September 1789,
Miscellaneous Manuscripts, DLC.
______________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 29, 1789 (Amendments)

With respect to amendments matters have turned out exactly as I
apprehended
from the extraordy doctrine of playing the after game: the lower house
sent
up amendments which held out a safeguard to personal liberty in a great
many instances, but this disgusted the Senate, and though we made every
exertion to save them, they are so mutilated & gutted that in fact they
are
good for nothing, & I believe as many others do, that they will do more
harm than benefit:
Source: William Grayson to Patrick Henry, 29 September 1789, Patrick Henry
Papers, DLC.
_______________________________________________________
OCTOBER 2, 1789 (Amendments)

You will find our Amendments to the Constitution calculated merely to
amuse, or rather to deceive.
Source: Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, 2 October 1789, Roberts
Autograph Collection, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ALSO:
4. Constitutions are written in very broad terms. There are, of course,
exceptions to this, particularly with respect to the constitutions of
local
governments. In the main, however, a common characteristic of
constitutional provisions is :'their broad language. How would you
interpret the following section?

Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or of the right of the people to assemble, and to
petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

How many words in this provision do you not understand? What is an
"establishment?" If the school board requires a "moment of silence" at the
beginning 'of each day, is the school board establishing a religion? What
does "abridging" :mean? If a government official leaks secret documents to
the press, and the government tries to sue the press to prevent the
publication of the documents, has :the "freedom" of the press been
abridged? If the people have a right to "assemble," could the government
pass a law prohibiting all gatherings of three or pore people at any place
within one thousand yards of the White House gates? The questions arising
from the interpretation of constitutional law are endless; ; tens of
thousands of court opinions exist on questions such as these. The broader
the language, the more ambiguous it is, and therefore the greater the need
for interpretation.
Introduction to paralegalism, Perspectives, Problems, and Skills, 4th
edition, William Statsky, West Publishing Co. St. Paul, Minn (1992) p 601
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:|It was
:|simply to forestall any attempt to force a "National Religion" on the
:|states.

FALSE:
CONSIDER:

BACKGROUND COMMENTARY
" 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)
***********************************************************************
Do you need the tables that actually break down the strengths of the
various denominations in the states. No denomination even came close to
having a universal appeal. Not only that but history should have taught
you trhat no two denominatiosn could agree on much of anything.

AND

Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, nine
(counting Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and
churches should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to
religion constituted an establishment of religion and violated its free
exercise.(78) Some had done so from their earliest foundations; some
arrived at that stance after the American Revolution. The Maryland
constitution permitted a general assessment to support religion, but
Marylanders firmly rejected a proposal to enact one. Of the ratifying
states, only Vermont and New Hampshire adhered to the view that states
could or should provide for tax-supported religion. On a whole range of
other applications, however, Americans inherited traditions of government
interference in religious matters.
. . . Further, the people of almost every state that ratified the First
Amendment believed that religion should be maintained and supported
voluntarily. They saw government attempts to organize and regulate such
support as a usurpation of power, as a violation of liberty of conscience
and free exercise of religion, and as falling within the scope of what
they
termed an establishment of religion.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America
to
the Passage of the First Amendment. Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986) pp 202 - 222)
===========================================================

" The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of
religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that
government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it
is
best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as
well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some
of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a
close
relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people
should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers.
The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed
this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was
the only one of these New England states that ratified the First
Amendment.
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and
Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people
believed that the government should support religion.
(The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, By Leonard W
Levy, page 146-147)
==========================================================
Alexander Hamilton defined establishment of religion as the government
support and protection
of religion.
"Remarks on the Quebec Bill," in Hamilton Papers, 1:169-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/02.html#1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now consider this:
FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY

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

You would have a very difficult time explaining how any of the three
vetoes
would have established a NATIONAL RELIGION.

Next try this:

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

Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jaffree: a Rebuttal
Rehnquist's fallacious ideas of history are rebutted with historical
references and material provided.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/rebuttal.htm

and finally

o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm

:|Nothing in the debates, the record or any other literature other
:|than a casually written letter to a particular church assuring that
:|congregation they could continue their worship, gives credence to the so
:|called "separation of church and state" fantasy.

Ahhhh, now your politics are being exposed

There was nothing casual about that letter however, that letter didn't
create separation of church and state. That was accomplished vis the
unamended constitution.

* Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State.
o No Power to Congress Over Religion. The Separation Clause,
Article IV Paragraph III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm

o No Power to Congress over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and
the 1st Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm

* Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm

:|Many claim that the
:|preamble

Preamble. A clause at the beginning of a constitution or statute
explanatory of the reasons for its enactment and the objects sought to be
accomplished. Generally, a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of
the reasons for the passage of the statute and is helpful in the
interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which it is
prefixed. It has been held however to not be an essential part of act, and
neither enlarges nor confers powers.
SOURCE: P. Black's Law Dictionary, abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial
Edition (1891-1991) West Publishing Co. (1991) p 813

In short, a preamble isn't law and confer no power or authority.
Nor, in this case would it be helpful in the interpretation of itself or
any wording contained within it.

:|or even the Declaration of Independence is not Constitutional law

The DOI isn't Con Law:

* Declaration of Independence: Its Purpose
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doipurp.htm

* Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
"Creator"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm

* The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doisussc.htm

* An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
o Declaration of Independence: Preamble
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm

o Declaration of Independence is not law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm

o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence,
Didn't "Found" Anything, Didn't Separate Anything: It Was an Explanation
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doiexplain.htm

"Founding" Documents and Religion (1776-1791)

* Founding Documents and Religion, DOI, AOC, Constitution, BORs
o A Big Fuss Over Nothing: An analysis of real and imagined
references to God, Christianity and Religion and lack thereof in obvious
places in five documents from the founding period of our history: the
Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Northwest
Ordinance, Federalist Papers, Constitution of the United States
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bigfuss.htm

:|yet they will argue til they are blue in the face that the above
mentioned
:|letter to a church is.

The Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association isn't Constitutional law
either.

But this is:

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

That is exactly why this was worded this way in 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.

************************************
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.

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

:|
:|If there is valid documentation to the contrary it would be interesting
to
:|see.

No you wouldn't want to see it.
I have directed to the very thing you have askewd for twice befroe this
and you don't seem to have made it there yet.

I doubt you will make it there this time either.

. . . 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)
. . .


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

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

This site is a member of the following web rings:

Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

American History WebRing--&--The History Ring

Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring

Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring

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

We also know that Congress was prevented from making an law

an establishment of religion. We know that because those words were
eventually chosen to be used.

Source of Information

The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the

Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.

House Rejected the Senate Version, Senate Would Not Accept The

Version, Thus Six men, in a joint House-Senate Committee, with no

of their discussions, debates, arguments, votes, etc took this:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to

the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

and this

"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or

mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

and created this:

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

The joint committee left no records of their deliberations. The

House nor Senate never voted on the Joint House-Senate Committee's

draft. The congressional action was completed. That final draft

Religious Clauses of t