| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
20 May 2006 06:29:39 AM |
| Object: |
Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions |
Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2217
theTrumpet.com - Edmond,OK,USA
.... For instance, in 2004, the court ruled that a state could bar a
scholarship student from pursuing a degree in theology, but not any other
type of degree. ...
***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "turk" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions |
20 May 2006 09:12:19 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qcvt625fqb71kcai9qd7j4ovj0khe0rgjd@4ax.com...
Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2217
theTrumpet.com - Edmond,OK,USA
... For instance, in 2004, the court ruled that a state could bar a
scholarship student from pursuing a degree in theology, but not any other
type of degree. ...
Obviously, that's because scholarships (and this only applies to
scholarships from public schools, which you neglect to mention) are paid for
by taxpayers. Taxpayer money is not to be used to support religion. Of
course, the bonus is that theology is one of those worthless degrees that,
at best, turn the graduate into parasitical clergymen who live by mooching
off others and sexually preying on their children.
turk
--
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does
not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its
professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I
apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Well Done" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions |
21 May 2006 03:30:37 PM |
|
|
"turk" <turk@nowaynohow.com> wrote:
<snip>
Taxpayer money is not to be used to support religion.
<snip>
You are mistaken. The constitution merely states that the gov't shall
not establish a state religion. Taxpayer money can support any
religion; it just can't support ONE religion only.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions |
21 May 2006 09:22:41 PM |
|
|
So you want your tax payer dollars to support Wicca, Paganism, Islam,
Buddhism, Rastafarian's, Heaven's Gate, Scientology and all other
religions too? I would prefer my tax dollars not to support religion
because the fringes (and mainstream, for that matter) don't have the
same beliefs that I do.
But whether or not tax money is the question, does not having tax payer
money not fund religion prevent you from free exercise thereof?
Well Done wrote:
"turk" <turk@nowaynohow.com> wrote:
<snip>
Taxpayer money is not to be used to support religion.
<snip>
You are mistaken. The constitution merely states that the gov't shall
not establish a state religion. Taxpayer money can support any
religion; it just can't support ONE religion only.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions |
23 May 2006 11:50:23 AM |
|
|
Well Done <WellDone@WellHoned.com> wrote:
:|"turk" <turk@nowaynohow.com> wrote:
:|<snip>
:|>Taxpayer money is not to be used to support religion.
:|<snip>
:|You are mistaken. The constitution merely states that the gov't shall
:|not establish a state religion. Taxpayer money can support any
:|religion; it just can't support ONE religion only.
Would you like to quote the Constitution where it says that
" the gov't shall not establish a state religion. Taxpayer money can
support any religion; it just can't support ONE religion only."
What I see in the actual Constitution is
(1) Oath of Office for Prez has no religious connection and one can swear
or affirm
(2) Church (religion) and state (govt) is separated by directly the
banning of religious tests and indirectly by the whole document as a whole
since religion is given no seat at the table of government, no influence,
no trappings, no power, no offices, no say and govt is not given any power,
influence, say, etc with regards to religion.
(3) This is further reinforced by the following
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That along with a in depth study of the founding era and various courts
cases writings etc has led to the flowing rule of law with regards to the
no establishment clause
The USSC defined the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Bd of Ed and here
is what they used to define it:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: [This is based on Madison's view]
In spite of all that Rehnquist and his buddies have done this remains the
definition for the Establishment Clause:
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.
Everson v. Bd of Ed, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
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?"
The word Establishment can have and has had a lot of meanings:
ESTABLISHMENT
Study Guide: What is "Establishment?"
Establishment, Part I
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est01.html
Establishment, Part II
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est02.html
Establishment, Part III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est03.html
Establishment, Part IV
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est04.html
Establishment, Part V
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est05.html
**********************************************
One can also consider this:
Here is what three men, who participated in the process, wrote about the
language of and the amendments in general:
***************************************
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
The above are taken from:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origp4.htm
***************************************
§15:41 MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Neither the Supreme Court nor legal scholars should be very dogmatic in
asserting the intent of the Framers on any aspect of constitutional law.
For one reason, the ratifying conventions are reported in such meagerness
as to throw very little light on the intentions of these persons who were
primarily responsible for the adoption of the provisions. A long study into
the intention of the persons responsible for the First Amendment should
encourage caution and humility in asserting what they meant in anything
other than the broadest perspectives.(13) Again, after monumental research
into the intent of those responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment, as
requested by the Supreme Court, the court could but observe: "Although
these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with
which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive . . . ."(14) So, indeed,
will be most attempts to psychoanalyze "the Framers." The Constitution will
always operate on many matters on which the Founding Fathers could have had
no intent.
(13) Antieau, Downey and Roberts, Freedom from Federal Estab-
lishment (Chicago, 1965).
(14) Brown v Board of Education United States (1925) 276 US 394, (1954) 347
US 483, 98 L Ed 873, 878, 74 S Ct 686, 38 AIR2d 1180, SUPP op 349 US 294,
99 L Ed 1083, 75 S Ct 753.
MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, The States and the Federal Government, Volume
II, by Chester J. Antieau, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, Rochester, New
York (1969) pp 716
********************************************************
RELIGION An Overview
Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning
religion 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 pretence, infringed.'' The language was altered
in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion,
or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of
conscience.'' In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall
make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' It was in the conference
committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language
was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting '' phraseology.
Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion
clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced
him, is fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the
others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who
voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html
*********************************************************
RESPECT ---- RESPECTING
Respect n. Probably about 1380. Resepcte relation, reference, regard,
borrowed from Old French Respect, and directly from Latin Respectus
(genitive respectus, regard; literally, act of looking back at one, from
respect, past participle stem of respecere look back at, regard, consider
Respect v. 1548 to regard, consider, take into account, probably from the
noun reinforced by middle french respecter look back, delay, respect, and
latin Respectare regard look back at.
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. The Origins of American
English Words, Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins, (1995) p 657
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ing a suffix meaning action, result, product, material.
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. The Origins of American
English Words, Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins, (1995) p 387
***********************************************
"Congress (which now means any level of government) shall make no law
RESPECTING (touching, helping, supporting touching upon, touching, aiding,
hindering, applying to, have to do with, etc) an ESTABLISHMENT
(institution) of RELIGION (any religious sect, society, denomination,
religion), . . . "
It is important to bear in mind, this is not one way. Religion was not
given any seat at the table of government. No trappings, no office, no say,
no authority., not was government given any seat at the table of religion.
**************************************************************
LEONARD W. LEVY
* Second, the nonpreferentialists stress the "a" in Madison's
recommended amendment without considering that it did not pass the House.
The amendment as adopted bans any law "respecting the establishment of
religion." It does not refer to 'a religion" or "a national religion." The
reference is to religion in general. The nonpreferendalist argument is
founded on a discarded proposal rather than the constitutional text.
Nevertheless, Madison had an interpretation of "national religion," as we
shall see, that undoes the nonpreferentialist argument.
Third, "the" is not "generic"; it is specific. Contrary to Robert
Cord, Daniel Dreisbach, and the others, the employment of "the" instead of
"an" as the article preceding "establishment of religion" would not have
broadened the establishment clause. Fourth, "the" can be as singular as "a"
or "an." But those are quibbles.
A more important objection to the nonpreferentialist emphasis on
the definite article in the establishment clause derives from the attempt
to construe it literally or strictly. That which is inherently ambiguous
cannot be strictly construed. Worse still, strict construction of the First
Amendment, if ever taken seriously, would lead to the destrucdon of
basic rights. Strict construction often leads to narrow-mindedness.
Consider the exact language of the amendment: "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."
The framers of the amendment deliberately used different verbs in the
freedom of religion and freedom of the press clauses. That is a matter
of considerably greater semantic importance than the difference between
"an" and "the" in the establishment clause. Ifthe framers meant what they
said and said what they meant, then Congress may abridge the free exercise
of religion so long as Congress does not Prohibit it. The point is that
contrary to Rehnquist and company, the principles embodied in the First
Amendment's clauses, not some misunderstanding based upon a grammarian's
niceties, command our constitutional respect.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, by Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, (1994) pp 117-118
*************************************************************
* 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.
The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, Leonard W.
Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina Press,
(1994) p. 118
******************************************************************
" 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. In all the other
ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But
whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in
government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is
that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to
legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power
either."
(The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, By Leonard W
Levy, page 146-147)
************************************************************
He [Madison] included chaplains for Congress, military and naval chaplains,
and presidential proclamations "recommending fasts & thanksgivings" as
examples "of a national religion. 24 Rather than let these examples, which
went beyond "the landmarks of power," have the effect of legitimate
precedents, he said it was better to apply to them "the legal aphorism of
de minimis non curat lex [the law does not
bother with trifles] ."25
Thus, the proposition that Madison meant merely a national church or no
preference in the support of religion is groundless, as foolish perhaps as
his proposition that the provision of military chaplains was like a
national religion. The point, however, is that to Madison "a national
religion" broadly covered as much as even the most trifling matters. Chief
Justice Rehnquist built most of his opinion favoring the constitutionality
of nonpreferential government aid to religion on the baseless reading he
gave to "national religion," without considering of that Madison believed
that military chaplains or a fast day constituted a national religion .26
Rehnquist merely read his own values into "national religion" (as did
Madison). The views that Madison expressed in 1789 on establishments of
religion conformed generally to his views ,whether he thought in terms of
a general assessment, a religiousestablislhment, or a national religion. In
each instance he wanted
"perfect separation" 27 between government and religion.
24. 18. Elizabeth Fleet, ed., "Madison's Detached Memoranda,"' William and
Mary.Quarterly 3 (1946)18. Elizabeth Fleet, ed., "Madison's Detached
Memoranda,"' William and
Mary.Quarterly 3 (1946) pp. 558-6o; Madison's emphasis.
25. Ibid., p. 559.
26. Wallace v. jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 91-114 (1985).
27. Thomas Jefferson to Edward I.ivingston, July 10, 1822, in Writings of
Madison, 9:100.
Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, Second Edition, Revised (University of North Carolina Press,
1994), 123.
*************************************************************
ANSON PHELPS STOKES
" 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)
************************************************************
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~can dst/madnational.htm
*****************************************************************
THOMAS J. CURRY
1771
In 1771 Thomas B. Chandler, an Anglican minister in New Jersey
involved in a heated dispute with Boston Congregationalist minister Charles
Chauncy, wrote that if Chauncy were going to continue to change the meaning
of the word "establishment," he ought to "publish a Glossary, wherein the
singularities of his Phraseology are carefully explained."' Given the usage
of the word in colonial America, Chandler's suggestion was eminently
practical. The ambiguities of "establishment" in the colonies stemmed from
such peculiarly American situations as that in New York, where the minority
Anglicans claimed to be the establishment, or in New England, where
Congregationalists -- Dissenters within the Empire -- in fact constituted
the establishedchurch.
In England "establishment" clearly referred to the Anglican Church,
officially approved and supported by the government, which excluded
non-Anglicans, who probably constituted less than to per cent of the
population, from positions of power, privilege, and social influence. In
America the constant need for more settlers made such exclusivity
unachievable.
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 105 - 107)
***********************************************************
Edmund Randolph of Virginia pointed out that the multiplicity of sects
would prevent "the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the
rest.". Patrick Henry, insisting on the need for an amendment on religion,
stated that "no particular sect or society ought to be favored or
established, by law, in preference to others."16 p. 197
In Connecticut, Oliver Ellsworth, replying to criticisms of the
Constitution, pointed out that Americans enjoyed full religious liberty
unlike other countries, where "one religion" was "established by law." At
his state's Convention, he stated that given the prevalence of knowledge
and liberty, the United States would never "be disposed to establish one
religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. "22
pp. 197-98
This description of establishment presents a paradox to the modem
historian. By emphasizing the "exclusive" favoring of "one particular
'sect," Americans appeared to draw a careful distinction between such an
exclusive establishment and a non-exclusive establishment or favoring of
several or all sects. However, during the revolutionary period, the only
serious Church-State conflicts had to do not with e exclusive state
preference for a single religion, but with proposals for non-preferential
state support of many religious groups. This issue gave rise to bitter
struggles in New England, in Maryland, and in Virginia where Madison led
the opposition. p. 198
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)
**************************************
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) . . .
.. . . It meant at least this: that each citizen had a right to the free
exercise of his or her religion as long as it did not "break out into overt
acts against peace and order." 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 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
"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
"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
"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. However, that might be less obvious if it is taken
into account that Congress was made up of members from all the states (well
maybe not all N C and R I had not ratified the Constitution yet, and while
they did eventually do so and did eventually send people to Congress I
think that during the first session of the first congress neither of those
states had people in congress). There was a mixture of religious beliefs
which would have made it very difficult for any one sect, denomination etc
to gain enough support to allow for the passage of laws making it the
"official" religion. So that is just one factor to take into account.
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.
The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the First
Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.
*******************************************************************
PROF. JOHN SWOMELY
The First Amendment clause, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion," means what it
says. The word "respecting" means concerning or touching
upon, or in relation to, or with regard to.The word "establishment"
had at least two meanings at the time the First Amendment was
adopted and has those meanings today. One was a technical
reference to monopoly status, such as the Roman Catholic
church had for many years in Spain; or to government patronage and
control of a church, such as the Church of England; or government
regulation and financial support of one or more churches, as in some
colonies and states in early America.
The other meaning of the word "establishment" is institution. The two
meanings are used interchangeably today as they were then. A religious
establishment is an institution of religion. Madison spoke of "the
establishment of the chaplainship" in Congress.' He vetoed a bill to
give a parcel of land to a Baptist church with the statement that
"Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.".
Jefferson, in drafting a "Bill for the Establishment of District
Colleges and University" and in the Regulations of the University of
Virginia, provided that the students "will be free and expected to
attend religious worship at the establishment of their respective
sects." Whether either or both of these
definitions apply, 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 there-
fore cannot be construed as authorising Congress to support
religious institutions.
It would be illogical to suppose that an amendment ex-
pressly designed to prohibit a power never given to Congress
in the Constitution should be construed as creating the au
thority to enact laws benefitting religion financially.
(Religious Liberty And The Secular State, the Constitutional Context,
by John Swomley, pages 48-49)
*******************************************************
"In contemporary America the only church that has steadily sought
substantial aid for its institutions is the Roman Catholic Church.
It is the Bishops rather than the laity that make such decisions through
the U.S. Catholic Conference (USCC). The USCC filed an AMICUS brief in the
MUELLER v ALLEN case in 1983 in an effort to reverse 'no aid to religion'
decisions of the Supreme Court. The brief indicated that the Supreme Court,
beginning with the EVERSON decision in 1947, relied too heavily on
'Virginia disestablishment history' and that the meaning of the religion
clause cannot be derived solely from the experience of any one colonial
group or locale' it proposed instead 'a sharp focus on the great diversity
of religious practice among the states.' however, that brief's discussion
of diversity focused on matters of ecclesiastical detail, such as 'assent
to the doctrine of the Trinity' and the exclusion of 'ministers from civic
office.'
The USCC brief said that 'the great number of people who ratified the First
Amendment in the states did not share a church-state tradition in common
with Virginia or each other.' That brief was mistaken. the common
church-state tradition ca be summarized as follows:
(1) Nine of the original 13 states had a colonial practice of established
churches financed by public tax funds.
(2) The revolution against establishment in all nine colonies was begun and
continued by protest against the support of religion.
(3) In single establishment colonies, an effort was made to make public
support of the established church tolerable by including other
denominations in the establishment through the device of multiple
establishments.
(4) six of the states at the time of the Constitutional Convention had non
preferential aid to religion in the form of multiple establishments.
(5) prior to the ratification of the first Amendment four states- North
Carolina in 1776, New York in 1777, Virginia in 1779, and South Carolina in
1790, ended their establishments of religion, making a total of eight out
of the thirteen that had no taxation for religious purposes. Maryland,
which in 1776 adopted a constitutional provision for multiple
establishments but never implemented it, would bring the total to nine
states that were not providing public funds for religious purposes.
(6) At the time the First Amendment was adopted, the major uniform
establishment practice remaining in the states was that of non-preferential
aid to churches.
The above summary revels a common church-state tradition for most of the
thirteen states, although they vary on details of doctrinal emphasis. it
also shows the Virginia history is not unique, because it was one of the
nine colonies with established churches (in colonial times), one of the
nine where there was significant protest against taxation for religious
purposes, and one of the four that disestablished before the First
Amendment was ratified. However, it was unique in the caliber of religious
liberty leadership of persons like Thomas jefferson, James Madison, George
Mason, and in the quality of their statements for religious liberty."
(RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND THE SECULAR STATE, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT, by John M Swomley pp 89, 90)
******************************************************
MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses were intended only to prevent
the establishment of a national church.
FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had
plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In
fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil rights
of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any
national religion be established...." This draft was rejected. Following
extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment today was
settled on.
The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First Amendment
to ban not only establishment of a single church but also "multiple
establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds many
religions on an equal basis.
good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment
is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the
Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives'
debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically
rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any
particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted
to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for
"non-preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that
government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally.
(The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that
would have permitted non-preferential support for religion.)
*********************************************************
The use of the word "establishment" in the First Amendment is
unique to constitutions of this period. No state constitution used this
particular term, preferring to make specific provisions which prohibited
tax monies for churches, discrimination against minority sects, and other
measures which might establish a church. The use of the vague term in the
Bill of Rights indicates the belief that the national government had no
power in these specific areas, so that a general prohibition towards
matters of religion was sufficient.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religion Under State Constitutions, John K. Wilson.
Journal Of Church and State, Volume 32, Autumn 1990, Number 4, pp 753-773.)
*********************************************************
[REHNQUIST]
and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the
first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of
establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he
episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American
Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828).
[REBUTTAL]
The first American dictionary to link "establishment" to a church
was Webster's 1828 edition, which was published almost forty years after
the First Amendment was drafted. Webster supplemented the sparser 1806
edition by adding the following definition: "The episcopal form of
religion, so called in England.
[Referring to this new 1828 definition, Justice Rehnquist, in support of
his argument that the word "establishment" "had a well-accepted meaning,"
ignored Webster's 1806 edition and wrongly stated that the 1828 edition was
"the first American dictionary." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 106
(1985) (Rehnquist, J. dissenting).]
The frequency of the usage "establishment-. without any reference to
religion, and the relative infrequency of its use in regard to religion,
certainly suggests that the word was not a term of art bearing a technical
definition.
The term "establishment," when applied to a religion, nevertheless
was controversial in the eighteenth century. An examination of several
disputes where the meaning of the term was debated suggests that by 1789
the word was more of a term of opprobrium than a description of any
particular church-state relationship.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A Standard for repair, The Establishment Clause,
Equality, and Natural Rights. By T. Jeremy Gunn. Garland Publishing, Inc.
N. Y. (1992) p. 71-73)
***********************************
The use of public monies, the taxing of individuals to support religion was
considered a form of religious establishment at the time of the founding of
this nation.
****************************************************************
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
***************************************************************
MYTHS vs FACT
http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/TenMyths.pdf?docID=148
***************************************************************
SEE: [all four parts]
Original Intent?
http://members.tripod.com/~can dst/origntro.htm
========================================================
JUST SOME FROM THE ENGLISH OXFORD DICTIONARY:
establishment
I. Action or means of establishing. ?. The action of establishing; the
fact of being established: in various senses of the vb. 1739 Butler Serm.
Wks. (1874) II. 225 The bare establishment of Christianity in ·any place is
a very important and valuable effect; 1788 W. Gordon (title) The
History of the rise, progress and establishment of the United States of
America.
2. The establishing by law (a church, religion, form of worship). a,
In early use, the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the
regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church
recognized by the state. b. In 17th-18th c, occasionally the granting of
legal status to (other religious bodies than that connected with the
state), G, Now usually, the conferring on a particular religious body the
position of a state church. b. 1731 E. Calamy Life (1830) I, V. 401 The
allowance of the law is of necessity a sufficient establishment [of
dissenting worship]; 1792 Coke & Moore Life Wesley II. iv, (ed 2) 355 Mr.
Wesley's great desire to remain in union with the Church of England ..
would not allow him to apply for a legal establishment. c.1662-3 Addr. of
Commends to King 27 Feb. in Cobbertt Part. Hist. (1808) IV. 262 In time,
some prevalent sect will contend for an establishment. 1886 Earl Selborne
Def. Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of the Church to the State as
those which are summed up in the term 'Establishment'.
II. Something that is established. A settled arrangement; a
settled constitution or government. Also, a legal enactment.Obs,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To the 1st Article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United
States, we may very well refer to ascertain the then acknowledged sense,
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' This was, the general law for all
the union, as standing under the legislation of Congress. There could be no
union of church and state; no religion established by law; nor could there
be any law prohibiting any man from worshiping God as he pleased."
(SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 1846, IN THE CASE KNOWN
AS CITY OF CHARLESTON V BENJAMIN)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison pointed out that one intent was to prevent the use of the
"necessary and proper" wording to make laws regarding religion, something
you have suggested be done. He also pointed out that people feared one or
more religions combining and then forcing others to go along with the
program so to speak. What is interesting about that is, it shows that any
interpretation of the word establishment that requires the government to be
involved is too narrow. Religions, religious sects, religious denominations
can create establishments of religion.
**************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain common elements are found in defining official establishment
during that time period is based on valid history.
The common elements that are usually found to be the status quo are
(1) an "officially" recognized and named religion (Union between
church/state, religion .government.)
(2) Official/legal mandated tax support of that religion,
regardless if it is a religion, sect, denomination of your belief.
(3) official/legal requirements that citizens attend and
participate in this religions, sect, denomination's practices.
(4) Dissent of or towards this religion is also viewed as civil
dissent and is punished in a variety of ways.
(5) No other religious practices or views are tolerated, or if
tolerated, there are additional financial or civil burdens that must be
borne by members of that sect, religion, or denomination to be allowed to
practice that religion.
(6) Members of other religions are frequently persecuted.
(7)Usually oaths or other tests are required to hold a civil
position in the government and are required to ensure that the civil
government will remain the protector of the "faith."
(8) Schools are used to teach and advance the "faith" along with
other subjects. This element along with the element of oaths or religious
tests were the most common ways of maintaining the status quo and ensuring
that it would be maintained in the future.
(9) Religion is supported (both financially and other ways) and
protected by the government. The Government uses its authority, law making
powers, and police powers to protect and support said religion, and
require, compel the masses to conform, obey, etc.
Other nations or states may have had some additional elements that might be
unique to them, but the above common elements are the elements that are
found to be pretty much universal in societies that had a union between
state ad church.
The removal of any or all of these elements in such things as constitutions
is the process of disestablishment. The more that are removed the more
complete the disestablishment. In the 1840's Frictions rose and rose big
time over these very issues, resulting in riots, violence, deaths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOL IV JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, pp. 191, 192.
"The bitterness of the dominant Congregational clergy toward him can be
considerably attribtued to his insistence on the complete separation of
church and state, just as the support of the 'dissenting' Baptists can
be. In a real sense, if not a technical one, the Congregational clergy,
magistrates, and more prosperous citizens of New England constituted an
Establishment."
************************************************************
Second. The New Jersey statute is challenged as a "law respecting an
establishment of religion." The First Amendment, as made applicable to the
states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105,
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&inv...
]
commands that a state "shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." These words of
the First Amendment reflected in the minds of early Americans a vivid
mental picture of conditions and practices which they fervently wished to
stamp out in order to preserve liberty for themselves and for their
posterity. Doubtless their goal has not been entirely reached; but so far
has the Nation moved toward it that the expression "law respecting an
establishment of religion" probably does not so vividly remind present-day
Americans of the evils, fears, and political problems that caused that
expression to be written into our Bill of Rights. Whether this New Jersey
law is one respecting an "establishment of religion" requires an
understanding of the meaning of that language, particularly with respect to
the imposition of taxes. Once again, [n4] therefore, it is not
inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment of the
period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted.
330 U.S. 1
This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First
Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson
played such leading roles, had the same objective, and were intended to
provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious
liberty as the Virginia statute. Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164;
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342.
The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its
history and the evils it [p*15] was designed forever to suppress, have been
several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the
application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. [n21]
The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been
accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's
religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted
to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging
religious freedom. [n22] There is every reason to give the same application
and broad interpretation to the "establishment of religion" clause. The
interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a
statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, [n23] quoted with
approval by this Court in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730:
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872)
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) supra, at 164;
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) 342.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
SOURCE: Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1
(19470
******************************************************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
************************************
RULES:
************************************
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947 (it is based the Madison view of strict separation)
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.
************************************
TESTS:
************************************
Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools,
the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious
practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment
Clause.
************************************
The LEMON TEST
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the
Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any
non-religious purpose.
2.The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
3.Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government
with a religion.
************************************
The HISTORICAL TEST
Based on Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Requires a unambiguous and
unbroken history of more than 200 years. BTW, the history that was employed
by the Court in Marsh v. Chambers was flawed. See:
Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~can dst/chaptest.htm
Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~can dst/meet.htm
Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~can dst/discrep.htm
The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~can dst/backfire.htm
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~can dst/marshchm.htm
************************************
THE ENDORSEMENT TEST
Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the
practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by
conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted'
over other beliefs."
************************************
THE COERCION TEST
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious
practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to
force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that:
"Unconstitutional coercion occurs when:
(1) the government directs
(2) a formal religious exercise
(3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."
************************************
***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions |
20 May 2006 12:58:46 PM |
|
|
"turk" <turk@nowaynohow.com> wrote:
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:qcvt625fqb71kcai9qd7j4ovj0khe0rgjd@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> Separation of Church and State: Absurd Decisions
:|> http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2217
:|> theTrumpet.com - Edmond,OK,USA
:|> ... For instance, in 2004, the court ruled that a state could bar a
:|> scholarship student from pursuing a degree in theology, but not any other
:|> type of degree. ...
:|
:|Obviously, that's because scholarships (and this only applies to
:|scholarships from public schools, which you neglect to mention)
It always amazes me how little people pay attention to what they are
reading.
I neglected to mention?
I guess you never really understood the following:
(1) The above was an excerpt from an article
(2) The article was written by another
(3) Since (1) and (2) are true and I only posted the excerpt along with a
URL to the full article I actually didn't neglect to do anything.
***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
