| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Dec 2005 03:59:45 AM |
| Object: |
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Feds back church's bid to meet at library |
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Feds back church's bid to meet at library
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/03/BAGECG24DA1.DTL
[excerpt]
San Francisco Chronicle - CA, USA
The Bush administration has entered a local court case in support of a
church that is challenging Contra Costa County's refusal to allow religious
services in a community room of the Antioch public library.
At issue is whether the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries should
be allowed to hold a four-hour meeting once every other month, during
business hours, for religious discussion and prayer in the library at 501
W. 18th St.
When library officials vetoed the idea in 2004, citing a county policy
against allowing religious activities in library meeting rooms, the church
went to court and won an injunction from a federal judge.
This week, lawyers for the Justice Department jumped in on the church's
side, saying the county policy would unconstitutionally deny the
evangelical group "the same opportunity to promote its activities that
other community organizations enjoy.''
In arguments filed with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco, the lawyers said the Supreme Court has ruled that government
agencies must give Bible clubs and other religious groups the same access
to public buildings as secular organizations.
.... and without charging rent, would create a perception that the county
was endorsing religion, in violation of the constitutional separation of
church and state. ...
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 U.S. 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Feds back church's bid to meet at library |
05 Dec 2005 05:27:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 04:59:45 -0500,
wrote:
This week, lawyers for the Justice Department jumped in on the church's
side, saying the county policy would unconstitutionally deny the
evangelical group "the same opportunity to promote its activities that
other community organizations enjoy.''
More than likely, the Church will prevail unless the
disruption is sufficient to deny others their rights.
... and without charging rent, would create a perception that the county
was endorsing religion, in violation of the constitutional separation of
church and state. ...
If rent is charged other groups, Churches should not be
exempt.
The general rule for use of public schools is that they
are "treated the same"---generally no rent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Feds back church's bid to meet at library |
07 Dec 2005 03:10:06 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
:|
:|> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:28:39 GMT, Mickey
:|> <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|>>>I think this situation is preposterous, the idea of a church using a
:|>>>pubic library for worship. It's a clear violation of the separation
:|>>>clause.
:|>>
:|>>Ain't no such animal.
:|>
:|>
:|> Of course there is.
:|>
:|> The USSC has upheld that doctrine for generations.
:|>
:|
:|That SCOTUS has upheld one thing as doctrine does not prove the factual
:|existence of something that in fact does not exist. That's flat earth
:|thinking. That's also how things get written into law in SCOTUS without
:|ever being litigated. (Leave it alone, Fred.)
:|
:|Free exercise clause, yes
:|Establishment clause, yes
:|Separation clause, nope
:|Santa Clause... "Hey boss,
:|Everybody knows there ain't no sanity clause."
I proved it existed but you have carefully avoid that reply of mine which
is par for the course.
Hard to get around founders who say in their own words that it is there
Explain this away if you can, or dare to try
Not just you say but back it up with actual historical and legal evidence
SEPTEMBER, 1789
Representative Tucker at the end of the First Federal Congress on the
subject of asking the President to declare a day of fasting and prayer— the
Amendments had not been ratified yet, so the only document that could exist
which would have proscribed the Congress from having anything to do with
religious matters was the unamended constitution.
"But whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have
nothing to do, it is a religious matter, and, as such is proscribed to us."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 5, 1798
GENERAL + A U R O R A + ADVERTISER
MONDAY MARCH 5, 1798
__________________________________________________
Take notice! Something very like this happened on the 4th of March,
1797. The American constitution has no relation to the Christian religion:
Yet Mr. Adams, before taking his oath of office, made a long exordium to
this purpose: viz, that, although the constitution makes no distinction in
favour of the Christian religion, yet that he (Mr. Adams) in nominating to
public offices would always have a special eye to that point.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: General Aurora Advertiser, March 5, 1798.
MFILM N.S. 12516 HF5862.A9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 9, 1798
GENERAL + AURORA + ADVERTISER
PHILADELPHIA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9. 1798
The other papers of this city have chosen to be silent this day,
because the President has recommended a fast. We do not follow their
example:
Because there is nothing in the constitution giving authority to
proclaim fasts .
Because, if any such power can be considered, by implication, as
vested by the constitution, it would rather belong to the Legislators.
Because prayer, fasting, and humiliation are matters of religion
and conscience, with which government has nothing to do, but which every
individual is to attend to at such times, and in such manner, as he shall
deem fit.
And Because we consider a connection between state and church
affairs as dangerous to religious and political freedom and that,
therefore, every approach towards it should be discouraged.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: General Aurora Advertiser, May, 9, 1798,
Philadelphia, Penna.
MFILM N.S. 12516 HF5862.A9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 14, 1800
THE GAZETTE
PHILADELPHIA
MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill
every considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of that
vanity and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in founding
their government, to preclude any connection, it will appear in the end,
even by our own deplorable example, that a strict and indissoluble alliance
of religion to government has been ordained in the nature of things. Though
formally sundered by Constitution and laws; together they decline and
together (it would seem) they are likely to perish.
==========================================================
JANUARY 1, 1802
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 3, 1803
The eastern States will be the last to come over, on account of the
dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of the union between Church and
State, and began to indulge reveries which can never be realized in the
present state of science.
The clergy, who have missed their union with the state, the anglo men, who
have missed their union with England, the political adventurers who have
lost the chance of swindling & plunder in the waste of public money, will
never cease to bawl, on the breaking up of their sanctuary."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: original source for quote -Thomas Jefferson to
Postmaster- General Gideon Granger, May 3, 1801, WORKS: Ford IX, 249,-
quote appearing in THE LIFE OF JOHN MARSHALL, By Albert J Beveridge Vol
III, page 15, published 1917)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
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.
(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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 28, 1811
VETO MESSAGE
February 28, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States.
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act for the
relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph
Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi
Territory, " I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in
which it originated, with the following objection:
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the
United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and
precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use
and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the
Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a
religious establishment."
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)
_____________________________________________________________________________
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"
(Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811. James Madison
on Separation of Church and State)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819. James Madison on Separation of
Church and State)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROX 1820
Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any
aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to
Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder,
hasten to revise & purify your systems, and MAKE THE EXAMPLE OF YOUR
COUNTRY as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and
its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects
of political & civil institutions. . . 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"
(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820. James Madison on Separation of Church and
State)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822. James Madison on Separation of
Church and State)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALL 1832
" 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".
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Fall 1832. James Madison on Separation of
Church and State)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 1833
"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.
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 4, 1879
The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go
elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more
appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of
which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what
is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed?
Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of
the Colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the
establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as
well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of
religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets
they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a
failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining I
heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated
in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In
1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration "A
bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,"
postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be
published and distributed, and that the People be requested "to signify
their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of
the Assembly."
This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison
prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and
signed, and in which he demonstrated that religion, "or the duty we owe the
Creator", was not within the cognizance of civil government. At the next
session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, "for
establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson was passed. In
the preamble of this Act, religious freedom is defined; and after a recital
"That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field
of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on
supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once
destroys all religious liberty," it is declared "that it is time enough for
the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere
when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." In
these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly
belongs to the Church and what to the State.
In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the
convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of
this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as
minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution
proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his
disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the
freedom of religion, but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that
the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the
necessary alterations. Five of the States, while adopting the
Constitution, proposed amendments. Three, New Hampshire, New York and
Virginia, included in one form or another a declaration of religious
freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North
Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution
until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first
session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was
proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of
religions freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to
an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took
occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the Government reach
actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature
should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the Supreme will of the
Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see, with sincere
satisfaction, the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man
to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition
to his social duties." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of
the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative
declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was
left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or
subversive of good order.
REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145 IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE TERRITORY OF UTAH Motion Submitted February 13, 1878 -- Decided
February 18, 1878 Argued November 14, 15, 1878 -- Redecided January 4,
1879
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 10, 1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: neither a
state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws
which aid one
religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither
can force nor influence a
person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him
to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining
[p*16] or professing
religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they
may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs
of any religious
organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the
clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of
separation between church and
State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing v 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950
" 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)
--
:|Now, let's all take a time out and read Zellman.
Oh yea, which part of it?
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 U.S. 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Feds back church's bid to meet at library |
06 Dec 2005 10:31:49 AM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
:|
:|> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:28:39 GMT, Mickey
:|> <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|>>>I think this situation is preposterous, the idea of a church using a
:|>>>pubic library for worship. It's a clear violation of the separation
:|>>>clause.
:|>>
:|>>Ain't no such animal.
:|>
:|>
:|> Of course there is.
:|>
:|> The USSC has upheld that doctrine for generations.
:|>
:|Just because SCOTUS upholds one thing as doctrine doesn't prove the
:|existence of some other thing that doesn't exist, i.e., a separation
:|clause.
:|
:|Separation anxiety, yes
:|Santa Clause, maybe
:|but no separation clause
:|
Sure there is
Explain this away if you can, or dare to try
Not just you say but back it up with actual historical and legal evidence
SEPTEMBER, 1789
Representative Tucker at the end of the First Federal Congress on the
subject of asking the President to declare a day of fasting and prayer— the
Amendments had not been ratified yet, so the only document that could exist
which would have proscribed the Congress from having anything to do with
religious matters was the unamended constitution.
"But whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have
nothing to do, it is a religious matter, and, as such is proscribed to us."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 5, 1798
GENERAL + A U R O R A + ADVERTISER
MONDAY MARCH 5, 1798
__________________________________________________
Take notice! Something very like this happened on the 4th of March,
1797. The American constitution has no relation to the Christian religion:
Yet Mr. Adams, before taking his oath of office, made a long exordium to
this purpose: viz, that, although the constitution makes no distinction in
favour of the Christian religion, yet that he (Mr. Adams) in nominating to
public offices would always have a special eye to that point.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: General Aurora Advertiser, March 5, 1798.
MFILM N.S. 12516 HF5862.A9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 9, 1798
GENERAL + AURORA + ADVERTISER
PHILADELPHIA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9. 1798
The other papers of this city have chosen to be silent this day,
because the President has recommended a fast. We do not follow their
example:
Because there is nothing in the constitution giving authority to
proclaim fasts .
Because, if any such power can be considered, by implication, as
vested by the constitution, it would rather belong to the Legislators.
Because prayer, fasting, and humiliation are matters of religion
and conscience, with which government has nothing to do, but which every
individual is to attend to at such times, and in such manner, as he shall
deem fit.
And Because we consider a connection between state and church
affairs as dangerous to religious and political freedom and that,
therefore, every approach towards it should be discouraged.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: General Aurora Advertiser, May, 9, 1798,
Philadelphia, Penna.
MFILM N.S. 12516 HF5862.A9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 14, 1800
THE GAZETTE
PHILADELPHIA
MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill
every considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of that
vanity and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in founding
their government, to preclude any connection, it will appear in the end,
even by our own deplorable example, that a strict and indissoluble alliance
of religion to government has been ordained in the nature of things. Though
formally sundered by Constitution and laws; together they decline and
together (it would seem) they are likely to perish.
==========================================================
JANUARY 1, 1802
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 3, 1803
The eastern States will be the last to come over, on account of the
dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of the union between Church and
State, and began to indulge reveries which can never be realized in the
present state of science.
The clergy, who have missed their union with the state, the anglo men, who
have missed their union with England, the political adventurers who have
lost the chance of swindling & plunder in the waste of public money, will
never cease to bawl, on the breaking up of their sanctuary."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: original source for quote -Thomas Jefferson to
Postmaster- General Gideon Granger, May 3, 1801, WORKS: Ford IX, 249,-
quote appearing in THE LIFE OF JOHN MARSHALL, By Albert J Beveridge Vol
III, page 15, published 1917)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
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.
(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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 28, 1811
VETO MESSAGE
February 28, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States.
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act for the
relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph
Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi
Territory, " I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in
which it originated, with the following objection:
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the
United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and
precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use
and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the
Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a
religious establishment."
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)
_____________________________________________________________________________
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"
(Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811. James Madison
on Separation of Church and State)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819. James Madison on Separation of
Church and State)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROX 1820
Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any
aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to
Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder,
hasten to revise & purify your systems, and MAKE THE EXAMPLE OF YOUR
COUNTRY as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and
its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects
of political & civil institutions. . . 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"
(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820. James Madison on Separation of Church and
State)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822. James Madison on Separation of
Church and State)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALL 1832
" 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".
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Fall 1832. James Madison on Separation of
Church and State)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 1833
"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.
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 4, 1879
The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go
elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more
appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of
which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what
is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed?
Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of
the Colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the
establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as
well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of
religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets
they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a
failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining I
heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated
in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In
1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration "A
bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,"
postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be
published and distributed, and that the People be requested "to signify
their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of
the Assembly."
This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison
prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and
signed, and in which he demonstrated that religion, "or the duty we owe the
Creator", was not within the cognizance of civil government. At the next
session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, "for
establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson was passed. In
the preamble of this Act, religious freedom is defined; and after a recital
"That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field
of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on
supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once
destroys all religious liberty," it is declared "that it is time enough for
the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere
when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." In
these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly
belongs to the Church and what to the State.
In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the
convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of
this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as
minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution
proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his
disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the
freedom of religion, but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that
the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the
necessary alterations. Five of the States, while adopting the
Constitution, proposed amendments. Three, New Hampshire, New York and
Virginia, included in one form or another a declaration of religious
freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North
Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution
until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first
session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was
proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of
religions freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to
an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took
occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the Government reach
actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature
should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the Supreme will of the
Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see, with sincere
satisfaction, the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man
to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition
to his social duties." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of
the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative
declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was
left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or
subversive of good order.
REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145 IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE TERRITORY OF UTAH Motion Submitted February 13, 1878 -- Decided
February 18, 1878 Argued November 14, 15, 1878 -- Redecided January 4,
1879
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 10, 1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: neither a
state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws
which aid one
religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither
can force nor influence a
person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him
to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining
[p*16] or professing
religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they
may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs
of any religious
organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the
clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of
separation between church and
State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing v 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950
" 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)
--
:|Now, let's all take a time out and read Zellman.
Oh yea, which part of it?
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 U.S. 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Feds back church's bid to meet at library |
06 Dec 2005 10:33:07 AM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|Susierenee wrote:
:|
:|> wrote:
:|>
:|>>On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 04:59:45 -0500,
:|>>wrote:
:|>>
:|>>
:|>>
:|>>>This week, lawyers for the Justice Department jumped in on the church's
:|>>>side, saying the county policy would unconstitutionally deny the
:|>>>evangelical group "the same opportunity to promote its activities that
:|>>>other community organizations enjoy.''
:|>>
:|>>More than likely, the Church will prevail unless the
:|>>disruption is sufficient to deny others their rights.
:|>>
:|>>
:|>>>... and without charging rent, would create a perception that the county
:|>>>was endorsing religion, in violation of the constitutional separation of
:|>>>church and state. ...
:|>>
:|>>If rent is charged other groups, Churches should not be
:|>>exempt.
:|>>
:|>>The general rule for use of public schools is that they
:|>>are "treated the same"---generally no rent.
:|>
:|>
:|> I think this situation is preposterous, the idea of a church using a
:|> pubic library for worship. It's a clear violation of the separation
:|> clause.
:|
:|Ain't no such animal.
No such animal as?
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 U.S. 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
