The Nature of Constitutions & Religion and US Constitution

:|Heck, he didn't even come up with phrase,

[I replied]
You are correct, not that it matters. Thomas Jefferson did not create
or establish church state separation neither in Virginia or the US.
The man most responsible for that was James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson.

But for the words I direct you to the following:

A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm

:|did
:|he. Could you point out the phrase "separation of church and state"

in the

:|constitution for me?

If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked that question or
seen others asked that question I would be quite wealthy by now.

What those who ask that question don't understand is, just how lame
that question that really is the and the other thing they don't
understand is, how it identifies them and labels them

Its labels them as being ignorant of history, ignorant of law,
ignorant of constitution writing and exactly what a constitution is
and identifies exactly where they are on the political spectrum.

The US Constitution has approx 4440 words. Do you honestly think, for
even a second, that everything is going to be spelled out in painfully
detailed prose?

That can be and might very well be the nature of statutes. It is not,
however, the nature of a constitution.

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

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

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

5. A central question for the interpreter of constitutional law is,
what meaning did the authors intend? Common sense dictates that when
language is ambiguous, the ambiguity may be resolved in part by
attempting to determine what the author of the language intended by
it. What was the author's meaning? In what context was the author
writing? Does the context shed any light on what was meant? This kind
of analysis is fundamental to legal reasoning whether the document is
a constitution, a statute, a regulation, or a case. It is particularly
`difficult to do, however, for a constitution written over a hundred
years ago.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Introduction to Paralegalism, Perspectives.
Problems, and Skills. Fourth Edition, William Statsky, West Publishing Co.
(1992) p 601
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[end excerpt]

The principle of Separation of Church and state was embodied in the
unamended constitution (The original constitution framed in Philly in
1887 and ratifided by the states 1787-88).

The actual "separation clause" was the religious test ban clause of
Article VI Section (Paragraph) III directly
". . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification
to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and the entire
unamended constitution indirectly.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE

A legal principle has all the characteristics of a rule of law (an
authoritative legal standard of general application requiring action
or forbearance used by courts and administrative tribunals as a norm
in deciding the legal significance of the particular facts presented
in individual cases), and, in addition, a principle: has a more
fundamental status in law then a rule, has a broader or more inclusive
scope of reach than a rule, may be used as a basis for creating rules
and is sometimes used by a judge to select which one of the two or
more arguably applicable rules should be applied in a particular case.

In out system of law, SOME fundamental principles are explicitly
specified in the Constitution of the United States, including:
The principle of due process
the principle of equal protection of the law
the principles of freedom of speech, press, assembly,

Other federal constitutional principles are derived from those which
are explicitly specified and then embodied in the case law of the U.S.
Supreme Court, including:

-- the principle that each person has a right of privacy, derived from
the first, fourth and other amendments

-- the principle that vague criminal statutes are a violation of due
process Learning Legal Reasoning, Briefing, Analysis and Theory,
Professor John Delany, 9th Printing John Delany Publications, (August
1993) p 8-9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such things as Freedom of religion or religious freedom i. e.
separation of church and state, separation of powers, checks and
balances are examples of legal principles that were embodied in the U
S Constitution. when it was framed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They [the Framers] divided power among the three branches of the
Federal Government, through Federal state separation of power, through
Church state separation of power, a division which is recognized in
the Constitution even before the First Amendment in the Religious Test
Oath Clause.

Source of Information: Excerpt from The Federalist Society For Law and
Public Policy Studies. Charitable Choice, Remarks of Professor Marci
Hamilton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Constitution and the First Amendment

Strictly speaking, the American experiment of freedom and separation
was not established in the First Amendment command that "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That experiment had been
launched four years earlier, when the founders of the republic
carefully withheld from the new national government any power to deal
with religion. As Madison said, the national government had no
"jurisdiction" over religion or any "shadow of right to intermeddle"
with it.(1)

The First Amendment, then, did not take away or abridge any power of
the national government; its intent was to make express the absence of
power.

The historian George Bancroft, in a letter to Philip Schaff, stated:
Congress from the beginning was as much without the power to make a
law respecting the establishment of religion as it is now that the
amendment has passed."(2)

Charles Beard made the same point:

The Constitution does not confer upon the Federal government any power
whatever to deal with religion in any form or manner. . . . The First
Amendment merely confirms the intention of the framers.(3)

FOOTNOTES

(1) June 12, 1788, James Madison speaking to the delegates (speaking
against Patrick Henry's assertions) at the Virginia Constitutional
ratifying convention, as reported on page 330, The Debates of the
Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
1787, Vol. III by Jonathan Elliot. J B Lippincott Company 1888)

(2) Schaff, Philip, "Church and State in the United States," Papers of
the American Historical Society, 1888, p. 137.

(3) Beard, Charles, The Republic, New York, Viking Press 1944, pp.
166, 178.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
Church State and Freedom, Leo Pfeffer Boston, The Beacon Press (1953)
p 114
No Power to Congress Over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and the First
Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-
BACK TO THE SEPARATION CLAUSE: (intent)
[ Artical VI ]
*******************************************************************
Church state separation was designed to prevent the government from
having anything to do with religion and to prevent religion from
having anything to do with govt.
The founders didn't trust government or church

"We had no monarchy or established church that the law was designed o
protect. Instead we had a written Constitution designed to protect
citizens from the tyranny of governments and churches "
America on Trial, Inside the Legal Battles that Transformed Our
Nation, Alan M. Dershowitz Warner Books (2004) .p. XVII
***********************************************************

Religious conduct in the context of the Constitution's structure
Freedom of religion is an integral part of the Constitution, not a
principle somehow divorced from the rest of the document. The same
underlying principles that drove the Framers' other choices also set
in motion their placement of religion within American society. Any
theory of the First Amendment that fails to take into account the
Constitution's larger structure is not complete.

One principle infused throughout the Constitution is distrust of the
powerful. The Framers believed that every individual and every
institution holding power was likely to abuse that power.4 They did
not trust the King, the executive, the legislatures, and even the
people, and therefore no single entity could be trusted to govern.
Distrust led the Framers to the checks and balances that are now so
familiar. The three branches -legislative, executive, and judicial -
were to check each other, and the federal and state governments were
mutual checks.5

It should come as no surprise that the Framers started from a position
of distrust. The years between the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitutional Convention were years of disillusionment. The
Declaration was an ebullient Enlightenment document that reflected the
freed colonists' optimism about the future after breaking ties with
the British monarchy and Parliament. There was widespread hope and
expectation that they would institute the first truly successful
republican form of government the world had seen. The Articles of
Confederation established 13 separate states, asserting "Each state
retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly
delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."6 Because the
Continental Congress had no power to force states to do other than
they desired, the Articles recognized 13 wholly independent
sovereigns. To say that the state governments that followed did not
deliver on the Declaration's hopes is to severely understate the
matter. Because of their distrust of the king, the newly formed states
disabled their governors and therefore placed virtually all governing
authority into the hands of the state legislatures.

That move would teach them the hard lesson that unchecked power is
abused power. In the face of crushing trade and monetary problems, the
states were incapable of acting in the interest of the public and
even more incapable of coordinating themselves, thus provoking the
ineffectual Continental Congress to eventually disband in the
mid-1780s.7 . . .

As if the post-Revolutionary disappointments would not have been
enough, the framing generation was predisposed to distrust the
exercise of power by humans, because so many were Protestant and a
significant percentage of those were Calvinist. Protestantism rested
on the premise that governing institutions, even the Church, were
capable of being corrupted. The Calvinists, whose theological
worldview was dominant at the time," held the paradoxical belief that
all men were corrupt but that their inclinations to abuse power could
be deterred by well-crafted governing structures. Calvin himself
suggested fixing the corrupt Catholic Church in the 16th century by
transforming it from an absolute monarchy into a representative
structure, where the people would have some say over their ministers.'3

When the First Amendment was amended to the Constitution, the same
principle of distrust found its way into the document. The First
Amendment's Establishment Clause, which states: "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."4 is an explicit
check on the power of religion in the political sphere. At a very
minimum, it means no religious institution will hold governing power.

Following the historical developments detailed in chapter 9, the
Framers made a conscious decision that religion and the state could
not be co-sovereigns.15 The combination of their power was the
definition of tyranny.i6 This principle has crossed national
boundaries and become a bellwether for freedom. Leading Middle East
scholar Bernard Lewis explained it as follows: "Separation [of church
and state] ... was designed to prevent two things: the use of religion
by the state to reinforce and extend its authority and the use of
state power by the clergy to impose their doctrines and rules on
others."17

By denying religion the constitutional authority to rule, the
Constitution privatized religion. There would be two sovereigns, but
they were secular governments: the state and the federal. That does
not mean that religion lost social power. It.could and would still
occupy the bully pulpit and use its influence among the people and in
the legislatures to shape public policy, but it could not be
government itself.

The Establishment Clause's prohibition of religious sovereignty is
inadequate by itself to ensure that religious entities do not
undermine the public good. By privatizing religion and protecting the
right of conscience, the First Amendment instigated a teeming
marketplace of belief. Religious views compete with other religious
views in the public square, and influence not only the people but also
government and public policy. The privatization of religion also
raised an important issue. If they were not sovereign and therefore
could not be checked by the Constitution's internal structures (like
the three branches and the two sovereigns - state and federal -
established), what would keep any one or any group of religions from
harming others? The answer is that religious entities must be checked
as are all other private entities - by the rule of law.

The end, perhaps the inexorable, result of the privatization of
religion in the United States is the rule that religious conduct is
properly subject to "neutral principles of law."18 The Supreme Court
in 1971 explained the principle as follows: "Our cases do not at their
farthest reach support the proposition that a stance of conscientious
opposition relieves an objector from any colliding duty fixed by a
democratic government."19 In other words, when a democratic government
passes a law, that law is as binding on religious conduct as it is on
secular conduct.

Some will persist in asking: If religious freedom is a precious right
in the United States, why force religious believers to be governed by
laws that conflict with their beliefs? The answer is that the duties
created by a democratic government - the law - are created for the
purpose of furthering the public good, which is served when bad actors
are deterred from harming others and punished if they do. When
religious believers avoid laws enacted in light of the public good,
they undermine the public policy that led to the law. Every civilized
society recognizes the rule of no harm, and none can afford to give
individuals the right to harm others just because they are religiously
motivated.
SOURCE: God vs. The Gavel, Religion and the Rule of Law Marci
Hamilton Cambridge University Press 2005 p 276 - 280

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I want to start by talking about James Madison, the Federalist
Society's patron philosopher. He would not have thought that
charitable choice was the right answer. Madison preached distrust of
every social entity. By the time that he and the other framers
arrived at the Constitutional Convention, the entire Convention was a
feast of distrust. They did not trust organized religion. They did not
trust the people. They did not trust the legislature. They did not
trust the Executive. They did not trust the Judiciary. There was
nothing in colonial or United States society that they found was
worthy of absolute power. And so their answer was to divide power
and disperse it throughout the society, and they did it through a
number of
mechanisms.

They divided power among the three branches of the Federal
Government, through Federal state separation of power, through Church
state separation of power, a division which is recognized in the
Constitution even before the First Amendment in the Religious Test
Oath Clause.

The framers did not have a utopian viewpoint. They did not believe
that we can make it all work out by all working together. Rather they
assumed that individuals will engage in inappropriate exercises of
power, and that any entity that holds power will attempt to abuse it.
This was especially true for Madison. There has been nothing since the
drafting of the Constitution that would prove him wrong.

Every structural entity that has held power in American society has
at one time or another attempted to abuse it. There is not a position
in any branch that we can point to and say: "Well, there is a position
in government where those holding power never abuse their power." Just
as the Framers expected, every position has been subject to the
possibility and the temptation of abuse.

Madison was quite consistent in his position of distrust, which he
extended to organized religion. His argument was that not even three
pence should go to the support of religious activities from the
government. Why not three pence? Because it is the start of a slippery
slope. If they receive three pence, they will ask for five pence. If
they ask for five pence, they will ask for five more pence. Once the
funding door is open, it is difficult to turn down such requests.
Madison's answer to government funding of religion was "no."
Throughout his Presidency, he was very consistent in arguing against
financial support for religious activities including the funding of a
Chaplain in Congress which he thought was plainly at odds with the
Establishment Clause.

At the end of his Presidency, Madison said the one issue that had
not attained enough attention in the U.S. was the accumulation of
assets and power by ecclesiastical bodies. The framer of the First
Amendment understood that power is seductive and that it will induce
any entity, including religious entities, to abuse their power. That
is why we have not just a Free Exercise Clause but also an
Establishment Clause.

That leads us to the inevitable conclusion that certainly religious
entities are capable of asking for more than the Constitution will let
them have. They are capable of standing at the statehouse door and
asking for more than they ought to and they are doing that in this era.

I have just completed an article on transfers of wealth from
government to religion. There has been no time in our history when we
have had more opportunities and more instances where religion stands
at the statehouse door or the Congress steps to ask for government money.

[snip]

Let's contrast Madison's viewpoint with our viewpoint today.
Madison's viewpoint was to assume abuse of power to put limits on the
exercise of power, and to enforce these limits.

We are Pollyannas compared to the framers. We have never known
religious oppression. The colonial society came over from Europe fully
understanding the capacity of religion to suppress. It was religious
entities that were the agents of suppression in Europe, not just
governmental entities. There was no separation of church and state.
The Framers, especially Madison, feared tyranny by religion as much as
they feared tyranny by the government. But today we are Pollyannas and
we assume that all religion is good. All religious programs will do
good for our citizens. And, most important for Charitable Choice,
religion is the answer when government fails.

[snip]

(SOURCE OF INFORMATION" Excerpt from The federalist Society For Law
and Public Policy Studies. Charitable Choice, Remarks of Professor
Marci Hamilton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AMENDMENT - AMENDMENTS

Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.

Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52

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

I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
******************************************************************************
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
*******************************************************************

Meaning of words

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

Excerpts from Original Intent? Part IV
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origp4.htm

=================================

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

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

*********************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Curry had this to say:

. . . The fact that Congress was not trying to resolve concrete
disputes, but merely strengthening safeguards against possible future
adversity, helps explain at least some of the inattentiveness and
absentmindedness attendant upon American's enactment of the First
Amendment. 2

When George Mason of Virginia proposed at the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia that a federal Bill of Rights be drawn up,
the delegates-voting by states-unanimously rejected the suggestion. 3

The Convention had earlier accepted a ban on a religious tests for
federal office, thus depriving the new government of one of the most
potent weapons of religious discrimination. Federalists believed that
the Constitution in no way menaced religious liberty. With this
belief, Isaac Backus, one of the most informed men in America on
church-state relations, agreed. He described the new constitution as a
door opened "for securing equal liberty, as never before opened to any
people of upon earth." 4

(page. 194)

Apart from the matter of an omission of a test oath, concerns
expressed throughout the states as to the possible impact of the new
government on religious freedom were usually vague as to detail. They
mentioned the danger that the government might use the Constitution's
general welfare clause to menace Religious liberty, but only in a
loose and general way.

(page 196)

"Timoleon" of New York did speculate that by way of a tax for the
general welfare, the new government, in the absence of a declaration
in "favor of the rights of conscience," might be able to suppress
troublesome preachers, notwithstanding the state provision for liberty
of religion. Both "An Old Whig" and "Deliberator" from Pennsylvania
also opined that the national government might establish a uniformity
of religion throughout the land by way of the same clause. Apart from
these few clarifications, commentators enunciated the need for
protection for the rights of conscience without elaboration. 15

(page 197)

By contrast contemporary comments on an establishment of religion,
although equally brief, followed virtually a uniform style. . . 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

(page 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

(pages 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 the
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.

(page 198)

. . . Organizing the government and enacting a Judiciary bill took
precedence for these members [members of Congress]. Indeed, during the
entire period when the subject of Bill of Rights was before them,
congressmen devoted more time debating it's necessity, to discussion
of whether such guarantee should be incorporated in the text of the
existing constitution or listed separately, and to philosophical
orations on the nature of representation and government than they did
to examine the individual rights in question 26. . . .

(page 199)

FOOTNOTES

2.Leonard W. Levy, "No Establishment of Religion: The Original
Understanding," in Leonard W. Levy, judgments. Essays on American
Constitutional History (Chicago, 1972), 173. Although written in 1958,
this essay remains both the best survey of the events surrounding the
passage of the First Amendment and summary of the sources for these
events. Several multi-volume works of primary source materials dealing
with the period of the passage and ratification of the First Amendment
have recently been published. Although these works do not add any
significant new evidence on the meaning of the First Amendment, they
do illustrate the relatively small role that Church-State relations
played in contemporary discussion. The works are: Storing, ed.,
Complete Anti-Federalist; Merrill Jensen et al., eds., The Documentary
History of the Ratification of the Constitution, 4 vols. to date
(Madison, Wisc., 1976-); Linda Grant DePauw, ed., Documentary History
of the First Federal Congress of the United Slates of America, 3 vols.
to date (Baltimore, 1977-); Merrill Jensen, ed., Documentary History
of the First Federal Elections, 3 vols. to date (Madison, Wisc., 1976-).

3.Max Farrand, Records of the federal Constitution of 1787, 4
vols. (new Haven, 1911-37) 2:587-88

4.Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 5
vols.(Washington, D.C., 1836; reprint ed., New York, n.d.), 2:151.

15.Jensen, ed., Ratification, 13:535-36, 2:386, 392, 399, 400;
Storing, ed., Complete Anti-Federalist, 3:36-37, 179 and 6:124;
Elliot, ed., Debates, 200.

16.Elliot, ed., Debates, 3:330, 204, 659

22.Elliot, ed., Debates, 2:202. For Ellsworth's statement, see
Jensen, ed., Ratification, 8498.

26.Annals of Congress, 1:441-50, 459-68, 780-44, 745-57, 761-78.

Source of Information:

The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the
First Amendment Thomas J. Curry, New York: Oxford University Press
(1986) pp. 194-199.
******************************************************************************

FINALLY

Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
Written by Susan Batte
[excerpt]

1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the
establishment of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths
for office.

THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of
Church and State by providing nothing in the constitution that
supports the idea that Government as Government is allowed to support
any religion for any reason and by specifically prohibiting the
primary political mechanism for supporting religion.

The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with
the Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution
concerning religion because:

1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was
ratified and was not designated as repealing any provision in the
Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for
establishing religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an
individual as an individual and not as government to exercise the
religion of his or her choice.

THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e.,
vouchers, welfare programs, etc.).

Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion
by prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of
religion - Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of
appropriation bill to fund any religious enterprise.

In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of
"establishment" would have to be broad, and in fact the broad
interpretation of "establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D.
(Oxford English Dictionary) sets out a 1561 definition of
establishment as "a means of establishing; something that strengthens,
supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s - 1800s, "establishment"
could be defined as "the establishing by law (a church, religion, form
of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the following: 1886
Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of the Church
to the State as those which are summed up in the term 'Establishment'.

Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with
the indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of
religion' refers to all or any religious establishment --- not to one
or some establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion
of "of one Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton
argues, the 1st Amendment was all about stamping out competing
rivalries between Christian sects.

In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is
RESPECTING. Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious
institution, be it a 20 member country church or a huge multimillion
member international religion, is an establishment of religion. The
government is forbidden from making any laws, positive or negative
that would pertain to an establishment of religion.

The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant
only to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by
the Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that
supporting religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However,
such a narrow reading of "Establishment" would need specific language
added to the Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of
the Constitution clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity
as opposed to any other religion or even irreligion. And neither does
the 1st Amendment.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is
not implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th
amendment applies the establishment clause against states

[end excerpt]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO SUM UP
What is written there is this:

The separation clause:
Article. VI.
. . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification
to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The reinforcement clause:
Article the third [Amendment I] [1]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

Which was interpreted to mean:

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, 330 U.S. 1
(1947)

AND

The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of
religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls
compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of
any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to
such religious organization or form of worship as the individual
may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it
safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the
Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to
act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the [310 U.S.
296, 304] second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for
the protection of society. (4) The freedom to act must have
appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection.
In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in
attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom.
No one would contest the proposition that a state may not, be statute,
wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views.
Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms
of the guarantee. (5) It is equally clear that a state may by general
and non-discriminatory legislation regulate the times, the places, and
the manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding meetings
thereon; and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good order and
comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the
liberties protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
CANTWELL v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
================================================

***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

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

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.