posted on February 23, 2001 10:38:46 AM new
We've covered this territory before. I feel like a parrot. This was posted by Bunnicula a while back:
Here is Thomas Jeffeson responding to a letter sent to him by a religious group after his inauguration:
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 of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
---------------------------------------------
I guess old Thomas J. was enough of a Constitutional scholar to know what the 1st Amendment means. He practically wrote the damn thing.
posted on February 23, 2001 11:09:16 AM new
I tried so very hard to find something positive...and serious...about the buffoon...But he really makes it very difficult. I loved it when he told the press (at least on the Lehere's news), talking about Clinton, of whom I am not proud at the moment, that he wanted to move passed that, because he had things to do....like sink foreign fishing boats, blast Iraq, anger China, sink this country into chaos....Oyvey!!!!!
Truly, he does have so much s---t to stir, that he cannot even put order into his dinosaur pea-size brain. He tries too bloody hard to convey his position, but in the process, he trips all over his tongue...
OK: I am dumb...so somebody please point me to an exit Poll? I want to see where this country stands (as if....)...I don't know how to find one. Thanks...
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on February 23, 2001 11:54:02 AM new
Correct, Thomas Jefferson would have known that Amendment 1 has only one clear rule applicable to religion (church),
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, thereof."
and that the term or clear intent of "separation of church and state" cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution.
Therefore, was Thomas Jefferson , when he said,
"…thus building a wall of separation between church and state, "
simply meaning that Amendment 1 of the Constitution prevents the government from controlling religion, that the church can (forever) control itself without fear of government intervention or discrimination, and did not mean that neither body can interact?
Regardless Jefferson was a "framer," regardless of what Jefferson said, and regardless that he may have personally and sincerely wanted a "wall" as many have interpreted his comment to mean, he was not a court nor a ruling body of law.
Therefore, the rule of law (Constitution) is as is written, not what Jefferson, as one person, said.
If a complete separation, to the degree as is now interpreted, is what the framers intended, then that is what should have been written into the Amendment or somewhere in the Constitution; they did not.
posted on February 23, 2001 12:16:56 PM new
Mike, you've done some interpretation yourself when you say that the framers "would have said ________" if they meant "_________".
I trust the interpretation of a towering figure who was actually present at the Constitution's inception is at least as plausible as your own.
As you point out, Jefferson was not a court of law. Neither are you, but we do have a court which is enjoined by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and generally speaking they interpret it closer to Jefferson's interpretation then your own.
posted on February 23, 2001 12:26:49 PM new
Here is James Madison's statement of the intention which has a direct correlation to Bush's proposals.
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.'' The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. this particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.
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, NY, Pp 474-475
Madison vetoed the legislation because it crossed the line of separation between church and state and thus would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
posted on February 23, 2001 12:33:33 PM new
How did [we] go from an rule that clearly means no more than the the [government] shall not make a national religion, to there is a clear law establishing an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state?
Excerpt:
The idea that the Constitution provides for a total separation between church and state, goes back to an obscure letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Association in Danbury Connecticut, in 1802.
****The Baptist Association had written to Jefferson about a rumor that the federal government was going to sponsor a denomination, making it the official church of the United States.**** Jefferson wrote back and reassured them that this was not the case. He wrote;
"I contemplate with solemn reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
In 1878 the Supreme Court quoted from Jefferson’s letter, but taking the opposite position to the one being made today. In Reynolds vs. United States, the plaintiffs, using the establishment clause and this letter, argued that polygamy laws were unconstitutional. An argument that fits with the current interpretation of the separation of church and state.
The court however looked at the letter in its ruling and used Jefferson's statement to argue that the government could make no denominational distinctions.
In 1947 the current understanding of the separation of church and state came into being in the Supreme court case Everton vs. Board of Education.
The court quoted only [the] eight words from Jefferson's letter Jefferson had written to the Baptist Association; "...a wall of separation between church and state."
By taking these eight words from a letter, not from a government or court document, but from a letter to a Baptist Association over a minor issue, the supreme court has changed the meaning of the 1st Amendment, [I] from protecting the church from the government, (to) protecting the government from the church.
posted on February 23, 2001 12:43:51 PM newHow did [we] go from an rule that clearly means no more than the the [government] shall not make a national religion, to there is a clear law establishing an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state
"Congress shall make no law...respecting an establishment of religion" does not clearly mean "no more than the the [government] shall not make a national religion" at all.
It does no such thing. The Constitution is not a closed document meant to be taken literally. It was not intended that way, which is why it has a mechanism to be amended as well as a mechanism for it's interpretation. Nothing in the Constitution is a clear law; it is only the basis for law.
Did the framers really mean that we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? It wouldn't seem so, from the text. As far as we are concerned, that's what it means though. But it doesn't really matter what they did or did not mean, because that's a matter for the Supreme Court to determine when the need arises -- although it certainly is interesting to hear straight from the horse's mouths (so to speak) that "separation of Church and State" is what they meant.
posted on February 23, 2001 12:57:58 PM newAmendment means to change what presently stands.
Until a change is (legally) made (amended), what is written in a document is meant to be a law and prevails. "Word of law."
No Constitution, no code, no statute, no ordinance is a (forever) "closed document." However, just because one does not concur with what is written and what is intended, does not mean the present rule can be ignored or whimsically changed without proper legislative and judiciary process in accordance with the law that governs the process.
One man making personal comment in a letter cannot change the law. There is nothing vague about the 1st Amendment.
If you do not believe the Constitution is a document of laws, why don't you run right out and violate a person's civil rights to see what process will occur?
posted on February 23, 2001 12:58:17 PM newBecause 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.
This statement by Madison goes directly to the point. Religious societies were not intended to carry out public and civil duty.
posted on February 23, 2001 01:03:16 PM newThe Constitution is not a closed document meant to be taken literally. It was not intended that way, which is why 1) it has a mechanism to be amended 2) as well as a mechanism for it's interpretation.
Now that you've addressed point 1 why not address point 2?
If you do not believe the Constitution is a document of laws
No where did I indicate this, so... *shrugs*
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Feb 23, 2001 01:04 PM ]
posted on February 23, 2001 01:24:26 PM new
Religious liberty and separation of church and state are the cornerstones of the American way of life. Freedom to worship as we see fit -- or not worship at all-- stands as a basic tenet of our national life. The Framers of the Constitution knew this and designed the First Amendment's religion clauses to embrace two key concepts: the government will not endorse or oppose any particular religious viewpoint (or religion generally); nor will it unduly interfere with the right of citizens to practice their faith. As Thomas Jefferson put it, the American people created a "wall of separation between church and state."
As any payment to a religious organization by the government has been shown to be endorsement of that religious activity too many times to list in case after case, which thereupon become law, and because religious organizations often discriminate against various groups, including each other, any such supportive activity by the government is violative the first amendment prevention both directly and by supporting discrimination in any form.
The constitution is not the end-all law, never to be subject to interpretation or change, it is the set of guidelines which provide the structure (you can call it framework) from which our system of law is derived.
posted on February 23, 2001 01:35:53 PM new
To lower the tone for just a second...
Sarge...
Seriously. Look at this from a practical perspective. Do you really want any of your tax dollars going to the Reverend Jesse Jackson, for the charity of his choice?
posted on February 23, 2001 01:41:17 PM new
I saw a report that implied that Jesse is looking over midwest Democratic states with an eye to taking over all of the state's social services and even some of the power management functions. Illinois is high on his list apparently because he already has a srong religious backing there.
posted on February 23, 2001 01:41:21 PM new
Hell, even Pat Robertson isn't too cool about this because it may result in (God forbid) some heathens getting tax dollars too.
posted on February 23, 2001 01:54:07 PM new
I'm also betting that most of what I consider the more enlightened (for lack of a better word) mainstream Christian denominations in the country will oppose or at least decline any government monies.
posted on February 23, 2001 02:03:57 PM new
Hi Antiquary...
Really? Why do you think that? I've never known of a church that turned down money. I'm not saying it doesn't happen...but, it would sure be big news to me.
posted on February 23, 2001 02:05:01 PM new
It appears Madison is referring specifically to a proposed "bill," a bill intending to specifically recognize a certain denomination and having a legislated legal authority which is in violation of the 1st Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, thereof."
Madison
"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.''
"….it (bill) recognizes this particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration."
"Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority …"
"….. would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency."
I can see where he is arguing that "the bill" is making a law that shall recognize a certain denomination, in direct violation of the 1st. Amendment.
I can see where he had laid out an extensive argument that the bill would also create a government-granted legal authority to the church.
I can see where he has stated the bill would provide excessive and legal authority i.e., "…an authority which, being altogether superfluous,….."
I can see where he is reiterating that the authority is (especially) excessive when legislated by the government for a religious (pious) charity.
Finally, I can see where he ended by saying to pass this bill is not only a violation of the 1st Amendment, but (also) would create a precedent for granting legal authority to other religious establishments "……would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a [legal agency]…"
However, I do not see where Madison is saying that there is an impenetrable wall, and the government and church shall never work together even though doing so will not be enacting a law to recognize a particular church or denomination.
James Madison when helping write the 1st Amendment
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed."
Thomas Jefferson
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
posted on February 23, 2001 02:08:20 PM new
LOL, Toke,
Yes, I think so, but I'm reluctant to name names. Some I think are smart enough to favor separation of church and state for their own protection, just as we infidels do.
posted on February 23, 2001 02:33:21 PM new
So if I understand correctly your central argument is that his veto was based on the fact that government would be relegating to only one church civic and public duties but if the government were to relegate those to several religious organizations, he would not have had a basis to veto the bill. Is that right? In other words the government can establish several religions, but not just one?
Madison's argument, in the "Veto Message," appears to be (his) argument against the passing of a bill that would surely "…make a law respecting an establishment of religion.," a Constitutional violation. And, if the bill was to pass, there would be established a precedent for (all) religious institutions to seek and be afforded the same.
"…… 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."
I do not understand what Madison's (valid) argument against "making a law......." to recognize a particular church, has to do with an erroneous belief that an absolute "separation of church and state" is what was meant when the statement cannot be found in the Constitution; only a dubious comment made by an individual in a letter.
posted on February 23, 2001 03:05:41 PM newBecause 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,...
Including the first part of the quotation...
So when was the law passed that would allow Bush to invest in multiple religions the authority to provide for the support and education of the poor, as well as all the other social service programs that have up until now been determined by law as being administered as a public and civil duty by the state?
posted on February 23, 2001 03:24:22 PM new
Okay, try this one on.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or... prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
When any governmental body respects and provides authority and assistance in any form to any person; organization; institution; etc; with conditions that the recipient does not engage in any religious activities, or display any religious materials, or is associated with any religious agency on a regular basis: are not such actions discriminatory and prejudicial against religious beliefs and religious organizations, and are not such actions "…prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"
It seems to me that government bodies penalize people and organizations for practicing religion (religious freedom.)
Do you believe that you are more deserving because you may be able to state and prove you are not religious and do not belong to any religious institution or church?
posted on February 23, 2001 03:58:00 PM new
Admittedly, the Constitution can be vague in certain aspects. However, the Constitution is the foremost guide regarding what the government must do and cannot do. It is also a set of laws. Moreover, it is the foundation for which to judge the Constitutionality of (other) laws and certain actions.
States have Constitutions and laws, but both cannot violate the US Constitution.
Since there are many laws; and many people; attorneys; judges; from state to state, from county to county, even in certain circumstances involving the US with a foreign country, interpreting what is Constitutional and what is not: who should have the, so called, final say?
)...I don't know how to find one. Thanks... 
