| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2005 11:10:58 AM |
| Object: |
Respecting an establishment |
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/cf8b419cbf71a16e?hl=en&
buckeye Jun 19 2000, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: misc.education, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
alt.christnet.public, alt.radio.talk.dr-laura,
soc.history.war.us-revolution, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.atheism
From: buckeye@
Date: 2000/06/19
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public / Schools !
Y2K <y...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:|> His comment was about the separation between any one religion and the
:|> State. It speaks to the intent of the First Amendment.
:|
:|The intent of the first amendment is exactly what it says.
:|
Try this on for size:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 OF INFORMATION: 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 OF INFORMATION: 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 OF INFORMATION: Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, 2 October
1789, Roberts Autograph Collection, Haverford College, Haverford,
Pennsylvania,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|The leaders of the public would not agree to federal govt which gave
:|the least evidence of wanting to interfere with church matters.
Nor did they want religion to interfere with the government:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**an establishment of religion,** can refer to an act or acts
Example:
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.
(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 220)
The above would be an example of acts or actions. "...any government
financial assistance to religion constituted an establishment of
religion..."
it can also mean a institution of religion, religious society, religious
sect, religion, church, etc.
So one can say that it could be a person (as in group, etc) place (as in
church or religious institution, etc) or thing as in act or acts.
Here is additional information that can help one seeking to understand to
understand.
James Madison vetoed two acts of Congress in 1811, while he was President,
because in his mind they violated the Establishment clause of the
Constitution. (Madison, since he considered by many to be the father of
both the Constitution and BORs, should have some idea of what the
establishment clause meant, at least what he felt it should mean)
Here is his reason for vetoing the one bill:
FEBRUARY 21, 1811
VETO MESSAGES.
FEBRUARY 21, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act
incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in
the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of
Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which
governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and
religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the
Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.'' . . .Because the bill vests
in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of
the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority
which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of
pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as
such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In essence the above bill would have crossed that separation of church and
state line and would be a precedent for giving to churches (religious
societies) the authority to carry out what should be public and civil
duties.
He was saying that for the government to give to religious societies
(churches) the authority to mingle in the public and civil sphere would
constitute an establishment of religion or more exact respecting an
establishment of religion
Giving financial aid to religions, religious societies, etc was viewed as
respecting an establishment of religion. (see the Curry excerpt above)
In some of the proposed wording variations that were rejected during the
debates of the religious clauses of the BORs we have some other ideas of
what was viewed as improper, unwanted, in short an establishment of
religion.
(1) 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.
(2) "no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed.
(3) "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
(4) 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.'
(5) ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience
be infringed.
--------- ------------ --------- ------- -------
IN THE SENATE IT FURTHER EVOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
(6) "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall the rights of conscience
be infringed."
(7) "Religion or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof," and Insert, "One
Religious Sect or Society in preference to others,"
(8) "Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience
or establishing any Religious Sect or Society,"
(10) "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination
of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(11) "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a
mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . . "
THE ABOVE WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE AND SENT BACK TO THE
HOUSE WHERE IT WAS REJECTED. A JOINT HOUSE - SENATE COMMITTEE, CONSISTING
OF SIX MEN, (Madison being the head of the House Committee) THEN FRAMED THE
FOLLOWING WHICH WAS PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES.
(12) Article the third. Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then of course we have that operative word "RESPECTING" front of "an
establishment of religion,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative lawyer posted this weekend:
In a nutshell, "establishment" entails some element of state coercion.
Prayer in public school is indeed "establishment" because there is no
option given: students have to attend that school, and thus have no
choice in exposure to the prayer... [snipped voucher comment]
*****************************************
Damien Falgoust, Esq. UT Law '99
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Respecting an establishment |
19 Aug 2005 02:16:38 PM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Madison and Jefferson both prayed as part of their Inaugural Address
:|(an official function). Why would they have done that if they believed
:|no one should pray from a public (government paid) position?
You forgot to provide the documentary evidence.
You saying it doesn't mean squat
Now since you butted in, how about addressing the following
You seem to have forgotten to do that. Your unsubstantiated comment above
doesn't address the following in any manner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 OF INFORMATION: 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 OF INFORMATION: 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 OF INFORMATION: Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, 2 October
1789, Roberts Autograph Collection, Haverford College, Haverford,
Pennsylvania,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|The leaders of the public would not agree to federal govt which gave
:|the least evidence of wanting to interfere with church matters.
Nor did they want religion to interfere with the government:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**an establishment of religion,** can refer to an act or acts
Example:
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.
(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 220)
The above would be an example of acts or actions. "...any government
financial assistance to religion constituted an establishment of
religion..."
it can also mean a institution of religion, religious society, religious
sect, religion, church, etc.
So one can say that it could be a person (as in group, etc) place (as in
church or religious institution, etc) or thing as in act or acts.
Here is additional information that can help one seeking to understand to
understand.
James Madison vetoed two acts of Congress in 1811, while he was President,
because in his mind they violated the Establishment clause of the
Constitution. (Madison, since he considered by many to be the father of
both the Constitution and BORs, should have some idea of what the
establishment clause meant, at least what he felt it should mean)
Here is his reason for vetoing the one bill:
FEBRUARY 21, 1811
VETO MESSAGES.
FEBRUARY 21, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act
incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in
the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of
Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which
governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and
religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the
Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.'' . . .Because the bill vests
in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of
the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority
which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of
pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as
such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In essence the above bill would have crossed that separation of church and
state line and would be a precedent for giving to churches (religious
societies) the authority to carry out what should be public and civil
duties.
He was saying that for the government to give to religious societies
(churches) the authority to mingle in the public and civil sphere would
constitute an establishment of religion or more exact respecting an
establishment of religion
Giving financial aid to religions, religious societies, etc was viewed as
respecting an establishment of religion. (see the Curry excerpt above)
In some of the proposed wording variations that were rejected during the
debates of the religious clauses of the BORs we have some other ideas of
what was viewed as improper, unwanted, in short an establishment of
religion.
(1) 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.
(2) "no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed.
(3) "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
(4) 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.'
(5) ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience
be infringed.
--------- ------------ --------- ------- -------
IN THE SENATE IT FURTHER EVOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
(6) "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall the rights of conscience
be infringed."
(7) "Religion or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof," and Insert, "One
Religious Sect or Society in preference to others,"
(8) "Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience
or establishing any Religious Sect or Society,"
(10) "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination
of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(11) "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a
mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . . "
THE ABOVE WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE AND SENT BACK TO THE
HOUSE WHERE IT WAS REJECTED. A JOINT HOUSE - SENATE COMMITTEE, CONSISTING
OF SIX MEN, (Madison being the head of the House Committee) THEN FRAMED THE
FOLLOWING WHICH WAS PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES.
(12) Article the third. Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then of course we have that operative word "RESPECTING" front of "an
establishment of religion,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative lawyer posted this weekend:
In a nutshell, "establishment" entails some element of state coercion.
Prayer in public school is indeed "establishment" because there is no
option given: students have to attend that school, and thus have no
choice in exposure to the prayer... [snipped voucher comment]
*****************************************
Damien Falgoust, Esq. UT Law '99
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Respecting an establishment |
22 Aug 2005 12:20:59 PM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|Ok. Here...
:|
:|Madison's Inaugural Address:
:|"In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed,
:|next
:|to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship
:|and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny
:|of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to
:|this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout
:|gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best
:|hopes for the future."
:|
:|Thomas Jefferson's Inaugural Address
:|"And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe
:|lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for
:|your peace and prosperity."
:|
Those are prayers. huh?
Official prayers, huh?
Did evweryone bow their heads?
Was there a let us pray said first?
Not politicians being politicians, huh?
:|Will you respond to the question now? Why would they have prayed in an
:|official speech after the Constitution was adopted, if they intended
:|the 1st amendment as you claim.
The problem is, I have not sen you establish that they prayed?
Now if you think I am incorrect about church state sepatation all you have
to do is explain the items you find at the folloiwng URLs away
If I am incorrect hat should be very easy for you to do,
That facf that you won't, that you can't speaks volumes
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Respecting an establishment |
26 Aug 2005 12:38:13 PM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|Ok. Here...
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Madison's Inaugural Address:
:|> >:|"In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed,
:|> >:|next
:|> >:|to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship
:|> >:|and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny
:|> >:|of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to
:|> >:|this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout
:|> >:|gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best
:|> >:|hopes for the future."
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Thomas Jefferson's Inaugural Address
:|> >:|"And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe
:|> >:|lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for
:|> >:|your peace and prosperity."
:|> >:|
:|>
:|> Those are prayers. huh?
:|> Official prayers, huh?
:|> Did evweryone bow their heads?
:|> Was there a let us pray said first?
:|>
:|> Not politicians being politicians, huh?
:|>
:|> >:|Will you respond to the question now? Why would they have prayed in an
:|> >:|official speech after the Constitution was adopted, if they intended
:|> >:|the 1st amendment as you claim.
:|>
:|> The problem is, I have not sen you establish that they prayed?
:|>
:|> Now if you think I am incorrect about church state sepatation all you have
:|> to do is explain the items you find at the folloiwng URLs away
:|
:|How can anyone look at that statement and not conclude you are spamming
:|those web addresses?
I don't know guess you gotta ask a lot of any ones
Next point...
You didn't make a point, You asked a question.
:| Are you saying a teacher can say
:|the words Madison and Jefferson said without threat of lawsuit?
Dunno, do you? Bear in mind of course a teacher while working at a public
school during working hours, i.e. with a class in her classroom is a state
agent
Jefferson and Madison while giving a speech were in a gray questionable
area. Now the suit Mike Newdow brought wanted to do away with that
questionable area by getting ride of chaplains at inaugurations
The problem you have is proving that those words were a formal prayer and
not just policies rhetoric
You haven't done that
I haven't looked in depth at the Jefferson and Madison inaugurations yet.
We did look in depth at Washington when we gathered evidence that his "so
help me god" was a myth, he never said those words
But i can look at the other two
I know you have been caught in ignorance so many times I would never take
your word for anything
In short you saying it doesn't make it so and you have never established
any form of expertise in the area for anyone to take your word on anything
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Respecting an establishment |
22 Aug 2005 12:27:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
:|I figured you'd run off instead of dealing with the facts.
LOL, what a clown you are.
I have shot your down so many times you aren't even fun anymore
You are a light weight when it comes to the hisotry of this topic
Here dude explain these items
Separation of church and state, the principle, where can it be found, or
can it be found in the Constitution?
One might consider the following:
====================================================================
Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III
" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
-----------------------------
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall
ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under
the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose
of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and
state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were
fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of
other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew,
that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to
itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance
was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to
exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
------------------------------------------------------
Then, indirectly the entire document (unamended constitution) as a whole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State, September 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
followed by
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.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 · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads area of Virginia you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
