"Gactimus" <gacti...@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:quednUc_C_zsQ3_cRVn-og@rcn.net...
After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans I was
inspired (not religiously so) with this question...
Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of church and
state or is the left yet again trying to trample the Constitution?"
No.
Separation of Church and state was embodied in the unamended Constitution.
The Religious clauses that were contained originally in the 3rd Article,
later to become the 1st Article or Amendment, only reinforced the principle
of church state separation that was embodied in the unamended constitution
See
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
Answer: The "separation of church and state," as it's interpreted today, is
not only wrong,
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
*****************************************************************
:|it stands the First Amendment, which was designed to
protect religious liberties, on its head. The First Amendment reads,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But the part that applies with regards to what you are trying to talk
about is
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
So, how does a judge putting the 10 commandments up on his courtroom wall
equate to Congress establishing a religion?
That is your problem.
The dis-establishment or establishment clause doesn't says
"Congress shall not establish a religion. . . "
What is does say is:
"Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, " .
THUS
(7) 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
******************************************************************************************
(8) . . . it is clear that the amendment does not say, "Congress shall
make no law establishing religion," but does say "no law respecting an
establishment of religion." It therefore cannot be construed as
authorizing Congress to support Religious institutions. {or religion, any
kind of religion.]
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context. John
M. Smomley.Prometheus Books, (1987) p. 49
****************************************************************************************
(9) James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
****************************************************************************************
:|Who can believe that some kid
singing "Away in a Manger" at an elementary school concert somehow means
the Federal Government is declaring Christianity to be the state religion?
Public schools are government schools
Separation of church (religion) and state (govt)
It's called endorsement.
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 no aid portion has been
battered, to be sure, but as Locke v Davey shows, it still has some bite
left in it. Nyquist also remains good law)
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)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&...
***********************************************************************************************
The above is a bit broader than just establishing a religion.
BTW, Madison viewed any kind of unions between religion and government,
church and state as an establishment of religion.
When the Founding Fathers were around, they studied the Bible in public
schools and there were even official state religions.
Actually they didn't. There were no public schools as we view public
schools today IN addition, most of the founders were men from well to do
families, they had private tutoring, their families often times had
libraries, they attend college.
As much as anything most of the founders, depending on how you want to
define that, were students of the enlightenment and many were not orthodox
Christians
It is said that none of the first six presidents were orthodox Christians.
:|So, how is it that
today we can try to claim that the Founding Fathers considered those things
to be unconstitutional?
When the men who were of the founding generation began to call for public
schools or common schools as they were called then, they frequently called
for secular type schooling.
Fisher Ames even lamented the disappearance of the Bible in schools in
Mass. during this time period
Separation of church and state, as it's interpreted today has nothing to do
with what the Founding Fathers intended and it has everything to do with
liberal, anti-Christian, zealots who are twisting the Constitution in order
to suit their own agenda.
This says otherwise
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
What should have happened is that the governor of Alabama should have said
that Roy Moore has broken no state law by having the 10 Commandments in his
courtroom and any court order to remove them would be illegal.
But it did break state law as well.
Alabama State Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment does no such thing. Because the Fourteenth
Amendment did not apply the Establishment Clause to the states is why the
Blaine Amendment was proposed which read: "No state shall make any law
respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." Blaine expressly stated
in 1875 that he had proposed the Blaine Amendment because the Fourteenth
Amendment did not hold the states to the Establishment Clause. Blaine
said no constitutional provision, not even the Fourteenth Amendment,
prevented the states from establishing churches. "A majority of the people
in any State in this Union can therefore, if they desire it, have an
established church," Blaine said.
Moreover, the Senate sponsor of the Blaine Amendment thought that the
Fourteenth Amendment did not apply the Establishment Clause to the states.
In 1876, he argued that the Blaine Amendment should be adopted because
the Blaine Amendment "very properly extends the prohibition of the first
amendment of the Constitution to the States [and] prohibits the States,
FOR THE FIRST TIME, from the establishment of religion."
A brief history lesson would prove them wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment
did not apply the First Amendment to the states.
Religion was not mentioned in the Civil War Amendments for the excellent
reason that there was no religious issue in the Civil War. There was a
religious issue afterward. President Grant was an adherent of the most
complete separation between church and state. He was not satisfied that
the Constitution kept the federal government out of the religious affairs
of the people; he wanted the states to be subjected to a similar
prohibition. In the last year of his administration, an amendment was
introduced in the Congress to accomplish this purpose. Known for its
proposer in the House, James G. Blaine, who eight years later would be
Republican candidate for President, the Blaine Amendment would have
extended the religious clauses of the First Amendment to the states and,
for good measure, have added a prohibition of aid to parochial schools.
The House passed the Blaine Amendment and sent it to the Senate where it
was proposed by Senator Frelinghuysen, former Attorney General of New
Jersey and a leader of the Congress which had passed the Fourteenth
Amendment. Senator Frelinghuysen noted that the First Amendment was "an
inhibition on Congress, and not on the States." He continued:
"The [Blaine Amendment] very properly extends the prohibition of the
first amendment of the Constitution to the States
Thus the [Blaine Amendment] prohibits the States, *for the first time*, from the
establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from
making any religious test a qualification to office."
In other words, both proponents and opponents of the Blaine Amendment
agreed that nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from
establishing a religion or from interfering with the free exercise thereof.
Certainly no one imagined that the Fourteenth Amendment had extended the
religion clauses of the First Amendment to the states. As many members of
the Congress which considered the Blaine Amendment had sat in the Congress
which voted for the Fourteenth Amendment seven years earlier, it is
unlikely they overlooked its possible significance.
Your Blaine argument is only partly true. It was much more complex than you
are letting on and it really doesn't mean anything with regards to the 14th
Amendment.
However, you might want to read the following, though I suspect you won't
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
