quote: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.
I didn't want to derail Saxon's thread, but I'm just confused.
When people have religious symbols, discussions, or otherwise removed from schools and/or government fascilities, it's always done in the name of "Separation of Church & State", and the First Ammendment is cited.
Now, while I can somewhat concieve of how those violently opposed to having 'religion pushed in their face' may find some of these things offensive, I do not see how things such as having the 10 COmmandments hanging in courthouses be called Unconstitutional. I can see 'inappropriate' being argued fairly enough, but "Unconstitutional"? From the way I see it, passing a law that disallows it from being hung appears more unconstitutional to me. Same thing with allowing student-lead prayer over loudspeakers at Public High School games. I can understand why it could make people uncomfortable, yes. I can see why people would want this removed.
But I don't see at all how it can be called Unconstitutional.
Can someone help me at least understand this viewpoint?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Courts and public schools are run by the government. If a governmnet-controlled/funded institution displays religious icons/beliefs, then I myself get a little nervous because THAT says to me that the government is not going to respect what I belive as much as the belefs they display, if they are different. I don't think displaying the commandments is really harmful, but the message it sends is that one type of religion is put above another. I'm offended by that and I think eveyone should be.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I see it is that when a court has the Ten Commandments hanging up or a school has organized prayer, the government is "respecting an establishment of religion". When anyone says "organized prayer", they usually mean Christian prayer, and like many people have already said, the United States is not a Christian nation.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having one (or some) religion represented as part of a publicly-sponsored event or locale (like a public-school ballgame or a courthouse) gives it added weight and credence. That sounds like "establishment of religion" to me.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Why having students reading prayers over the public school PA or having a public courthouse hang the 10 Commandments up on the wall has to do with the definition of "establish," I think. When a public institution actively endorses a religion by 'forcing' it on people, it is in a sense 'establishing' it more than it should.
I think the fans of prayer in school want this to happen. They obviously want the establishment of religion in public spaces. For example, it isn't like kids can't pray in school. What can't happen is have people in authority (teachers, principals, etc.) LEADING kids in prayer. Heck, as a student I prayed daily in class...prayed for it to go faster, prayed for a fire drill to get me out of a stupid lecture, etc. But if that lame teacher decided to lead the class in such a prayer, that is a no-no.
Same with posting the 10 Commandments. For a courthouse, a public, government building, to do this would be to have it endorse one religous belief. Not the place for it. Put them in your home, in your church, in your private business, on your bumper sticker, on your t-shirt and so on but it is clearly not the role of government to be entering into religious discussions by posting one religion's view of the world, no matter how "universal" it would be.
The easy test for this is to ask those same Christian pro-prayer folks if they would mind it if a prayer from the teachings of Anton LeVay could be said by a teacher with the students to chime in. Or Muslim. Or Buddhist. Or whatever. I doubt folks would be so ecumenical about it. How about the religious teachings of some tribal nation being posted on the walls of the courthouse? Or "In Allah We Trust" on the Reagan $20 bill? Again, I can't see a lot of Christian folk jumping up in support of that. Maybe I am wrong, though.
Anyway, rant aside, you can't have public authority figures or venues taking a side (by actively advocating for a particular religion). That would be schools and other public buildings and those that operate them.
posted
What if a place was allowed to hang a sign in a courthouse that said "Mormons are Baby-Eating Non-Christian Pagans, but We Love Them Anyway," or had student-led prayers to pray that the sinful LDS church would disband and see the Truth? Would you find it unconstitutionally oppressive then?
Because that's how catering to any single religion or religious group feels to those not of that religion or religious group. It's kindof like the "bless his/her/its heart" thing spoken just after or before insulting something—yeah, they're words that make it seem like no harm is meant, but the harmful thing is said/done anyway.
When the originators of the Constitution wrote the document, their idea wasto avoid something like the Church of England having more influence than it should have in government, even though the influence was often subversive or passive(aggressive). In short, the constitution was written to make sure that no matter what the majority religion was, it would not insinuate itself into politics in such a way as to make the minority religions uncomfortable or feel excluded. School (Christian) Prayer (and let's face it, it's Christian 99.9% of the time) excludes non-Christian students and insinuates itself as being integral with the public schooling process when it takes place, and the Christianized version of the Ten Commandments is a blatant, overt proclamation that the court is primarily a Christian court, and implies that Christian law will dictate the sentences doled out instead of objective justice.
Sure, there are arguments that both are untrue and that no one who says/does them would mean it that way (especially not if they were "true" Christians), but the means do not justify the ends that they produce (in non-whatever-religion is the minority).
Can you really not see how such actions are catering to certain religious ideals while excluding others? Religious exclusion is unconstitutional, and is the basis for the statements made of that sort.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see any difference between "In God We Trust" and "In Allah We Trust". It's just the same word in a different language.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see any difference between "In God We Trust" and "In Allah We Trust". It's just the same word in a different language.
But in what way? You see no difference in that "I want that on my 20 dollar bill" or "Yup, that's establishment of religion as they are both the same?"
Just curious. For me, they are the same, too, and shouldn't be on anything that isn't specifically religious and private.
I don't want a "In No God Do We Trust," either. I just want it to say "20 bucks" and get me something when I use it to buy a product.
posted
"respecting" means "in regards to" and "establishment" means "institution or practice" (in the most narrow sense, it may mean a number of expanded things as well).
So any law that is in regard to a practice of religion (such as adding religious words to the national pledge purely for the purpose of being religious) cannot be made.
Does that clear it up?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Russell, those are the definitions of the words I'd assumed the framers had in mind.
And that doesn't clear it up - that would appear that any law made BANNING religious expression - whether it be in a courthouse or no - would be what is unconstitutional, not the other way around.
I would THINK the intent behind it was to stop opression from occurring, to let people express how and where they'd like. I don't view it as being intended to RESTRICT, but rather to keep FROM BEING restricted.
It seems they were more concerned with freeing up people who were being restricted from practices, rather than stopping people from merely feeling offended.
posted
The language of the entire amendment seems consistent in the purpose of 'freedom' rather than 'restriction', is what I meant to say. I'm trying to look at context.
Perhaps this is why we need a 'plain speech summary' version of every legal bill and law so the original intent doesn't get lost or reinterpreted through time.
posted
I know Thomas Jefferson wrote some stuff about religion and government. Fugu should invent that thing that lets you magically search the web really fast for anything you want using that semantic web stuff. ::hopes he gets the hint::
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were trying to prevent two things: the oppression of people practicing religion, and the establishment of a state religion (as that would lead to the second). Seeing no need for a government to ever make a law about a religious practice (rather than merely a common practice religions also do, such as pay taxes), they forbade it entirely. I see no need to make exceptions because the authors meant well (which they didn't in this case, anyways, unless you think sending all the non-christians in the country a negative message about their religions or lack thereof was a good intention, as it was one of the stated ones for the addition).
quote: Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
posted
Simple question: if you asked 50s-era lawmakers why they added "under God" to the Pledge, a cross to the Los Angeles seal, etc., what would they say? My guess is that their motives weren't based in scansion.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a page with a bunch of quotations from Jefferson concerning separation of church and state.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One must ask themselves, if the original intent of the first amendment was to make government entirely neutral on religion then:
1) Why were their state churches, which taxpayers had to fund, until the early 1800s?
2) Why did the government, with Thomas Jefferson being one of the biggest proponents, mandate money for missionary efforts to convert the Indians to Christianity?
3) Why does Congress and the Supreme Court begin the day with official prayers?
4) Why did the Supreme Court in the 1800s declare officially that the USA was a Christian nation?
I will note that Jefferson did not even sign the US Constitution so why bring him up in reference to the First Amendment?
And speaking of quotes, here's a good one in reference to founding fathers, Constitution questions aside:
"The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" George Washington
posted
The BoR was drafted by wary idealists. The wide variety of people who took public office in the years to come were obviously not all cast from the same mold, and naturally many/most reflected the religious society of their day. Thankfully, history has done a pretty good job of preserving the enduring principles while the fads of each era fade away. The FUD of the Red Scare, unfortunately, continues to resonate with some people; I'm sure we can all name media & politicos who are not helping.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The underlying principles of our nation were not and are not fads. If we begin to view the Constitution in a liberalistic fashion it isn't even worth the paper it's written on.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fetch your reading glasses. The BoR are not fads. Converting Indians was. The BoR represent Enlightenment idealism. Georgia's requiring voters to be Protestant represented local politicians making what President Madison would call "the old mistake." (Interestingly, some of these same states also barred clergy from holding public office.)
I'm not sure what "liberalistic" means, but certainly you have to agree that at the time it was written the American constitution was the world's greatest testament to political liberalism? It was intended from the start to grant government powers frugally (while incorporating lessons from the Confederation era) while granting -- nay, affirming -- individual freedoms liberally.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
What's that THING? Out in the distance? OH DEAR GOD! It's a GODLESS COMMUNIST!
Watch out, radioactive man!
Sorrry. I had to do that. Especially since many of my great grandparents were Communists!
Also, the Enlightenment was about a lot of things, but increasing influence of organized religion was NOT one of them. The Philosophes may have worshipped God in church, but when it got down to bussiness, they worshipped reason.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on what definition you afix tot he term "liberal". In the sense of that era "classical liberalism" as embodied in Locke and others who advocated federalism, then yes. However, if you mean liberal in the sense of the radicalism and judicial activism that has led to such things as abortion on demand (Roe v. Wade decision), gay rights and the like then no, the founders had no intention of granting the government such powers to tell states and localities they had to accept such things. Prayer at school events? Strange it took place until judicial rdicals made it practically illegal -- what would Jefferson, a strong opponent of granting the courts any power to do anything but give advice, think of that?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither the number of occurences nor the number of people participating in an event are relevant to its permissibility under the law or any moral code.
This is one of the purposes of the BoR -- to protect basic rights of populations, regardless of their size -- ie. Minority Rights.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
michaele, just a semantic note. If you're opposed to something, referring to it as "rights" probably won't get you very far, persuasively speaking
I see no particular reason why our national government should need to "be" one faith or another, or represent faith at all. If this truly is a Christian nation (as some allege), then that fact ought to show up in our works as individuals, or as churches. It doesn't need to be written into our laws.
I personally think that religion functions far better when it is not legislated. We should be secure and active enough in our faith that it can thrive even when not propped up by the government. If we ever get to the point at which we need the government to support our faith to keep it alive, then it is already dead.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taal, to answer your initial question, the phrase "Seperation of church and state" is not taken from the Constitution. It's taken from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church that asked him to visit. He felt it would be inappropriate for him to lead them in prayer because he held office.
If seperation were just about not forcing religion on anyone, I really wouldn't care. I think that's a good idea. But go survey some high schoolers some time. Most of them think no school prayer means they aren't allowed to pray in school. At all. Ever.
Any time my mom gets a new student in class, they always tell her she's not allowed to bring her Bible. It's a felony.
It's actually ok for faculty to discuss religion with students if the student starts the conversation. I doubt more than a handful of high schoolers know that, though.
I know it's trite, but it just bugs me that a good chunk of people think freedom of religion means Christians shouldn't be allowed to discuss their beliefs in public.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would THINK the intent behind it was to stop opression from occurring, to let people express how and where they'd like.
Taalcon, I think this is the crux of the issue. People can express themselves (and their religion) how and where they like - as private citizens. But they cannot use their government positions or government resources to do so.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Avid - I was a high schooler until about 4 days ago ( ). Believe me, we discussed religion all the time.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know it's trite, but it just bugs me that a good chunk of people think freedom of religion means Christians shouldn't be allowed to discuss their beliefs in public.
posted
Miro, we as in you and your friends or the student body as a whole? After all, since you post here, you must be reasonable intelligent and informed. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. We're not so well informed back in Citrus County. There was a huge flap back in 8th grade when one girl wanted to lead a prayer for graduation. The teachers had to explain to everyone that if a student brought it up and the majority of the class voted for it, a student could lead the class in prayer.
As for my mom's kids, they're SEDs. They're very good at knowing the rights that apply to them suing someone, but they're firmly convinced you can't talk about God in school. The high school home ec teacher goes to my church. She regularly has kids tell her she can't bring her Bible to school.
And this is a southern town with churches every few blocks. It's not like they're not around religion. They're just convinced you can't have it in school.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you seriously contending that our nation should not evolve as time passes?
For most definitions of "our nation," no. The People and their memes will evolve whether we like it or not. Their laws might be good enough to last awhile, although history of republics shows a pretty constant flow of legislation. The metalaws that determine what sorts of things are permissible when wielding government power might never change, and there are certainly lots of people on every side of the political spectrum who think we've nailed a fine combination of principles that a healthy society can apply to any context. Some think it would be cool if "our nation" evolved into a benevolent dictatorship or what have you, but then it would no longer be the U.S.A. so the terminology doesn't quite fit.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the founding fathers prohibited Congress from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion, they were not just trying to prevent churches from meddling in government. In fact, that was not even a primary concern. Instead, they were primarily concerned with government interference in religion.
In other words, the biggest problem with an established Church isn't that you get too much religion in your government. It's that you get too much government in your religion. This is why they should be separated to a certain degree.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One common misconception about the First Amendment has to do with changes in the language. When the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, to many modern Americans this sounds like it means that Congress (and now the States) can't make any laws about religion.
In fact, the term "establishment of religion" had a very specific meaning at the time the Constitution written, one which has mostly disappeared from most people's experience today, especially in the U.S. The nations with which the founders were familiar, especially England, all had official State churches, which had particuarly favored status under the law, and which were supported by the State. Allegiance to the state Church was often inextricably bound up with allegiance to the nation.
Thus, people who were of a different religious persuasion could (and did) have their patriotism and loyalty to the nation questioned. They were less likely to be able to have a voice in government.
Thus, the First Amendment was specifically meant to prevent the new U.S. government from "establishing" any Church as the official state Church. Interestingly, as has been pointed out already, some of the original States did have their own established Churches. The First Amendment had no effect on this. In fact, part of the purpose for the Establishment Clause was to protect the individual States' choices of established religions. Any official Church the U.S. goverment chose would be bound to be in conflict with the established Church of at least one State.
The Establishment Clause has always been successful in that the U.S. government has never adopted an official state Church. However, its effect did not stop there, even from the beginning. It has long been recognized that an official Church need not be declared in order for many of the same problems to be introduced into the government of the nation. Thus, the Clause has long been interpreted to prevent Congress from making laws favoring one religion over others in a variety of ways. More recently, it has sometimes been interpreted to prohibit laws that favor religion over irreligion (a strange word if ever there was one).
However, the exact line which Congress (and now the States) must not cross is NOT settled, no matter how much proponents of the Separation of Church and State would like it to be. The Establishment Clause does NOT prohibit government from having any involvement at all with religious expression or belief, or even with religious organizations. We may never settle, to everyone's satisfaction, where that line really lies or should lie.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is also my personal belief that one of the reasons for the inclusion of the religion clauses in the First Amendment was to strengthen the nation by avoiding forcing citizens to make hard choices between allegiance to their country and allegiance to their faith. In those early days, and even today, many people would, with regret, choose their faith if forced to choose. The government is wise not to present people with this choice.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Thus, people who were of a different religious persuasion could (and did) have their patriotism and loyalty to the nation questioned. They were less likely to be able to have a voice in government."
And as we all know, Muslims and atheists and Scientologists are regularly elected to the highest positions of American government today.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TD:"And as we all know, Muslims and atheists and Scientologists are regularly elected to the highest positions of American government today."
Of course, the First Amendment applies only to government, and not to the choices and prejudices of private citizens. The point is that the law itself cannot and does not prevent these people from being elected to office, either directly or indirectly.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just pointing out that there's nothing stopping people from questioning the loyalty or morality of people who aren't affiliated with the church of their choice TODAY. I believe Bush himself commented, early in his term, that he didn't believe atheists could really be good Americans.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the actual quotation was "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." I think that's a bit worse than how you paraphrased it.
------------------------
quote:Taalcon, I think this is the crux of the issue. People can express themselves (and their religion) how and where they like - as private citizens. But they cannot use their government positions or government resources to do so.
Yes. That's it exactly.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"establishment" means "institution or practice"
No, not really. These are probably the most relevant definitions:
quote:2. esp. The ‘establishing’ by law (a church, religion, form of worship). (See ESTABLISH v. 7.) a. In early use, the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church recognized by the state. b. In 17th-18th c. occasionally the granting of legal status to (other religious bodies than that connected with the state). c. Now usually, the conferring on a particular religious body the position of a state church.
8. a. The ecclesiastical system established by law; more fully Church Establishment. Hence the Establishment often occurs as a distinctive name for the established church (esp. of England, Scotland, formerly Ireland), in contradistinction to the non-established churches or sects.
quote: 7. From 16th c. often used with reference to ecclesiastical ceremonies or organization, and to the recognized national church or its religion; in early use chiefly pass. in sense 2 (esp. in phrase by law established, i.e. ‘prescribed or settled by law’), but sometimes with mixture of senses 3-5. Hence in recent use: To place (a church or a religious body) in the position of a national or state church.
[ June 16, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
There was a side comment by a supreme court justice that it was a christian nation (and even for that all he was referring to was dominant makeup and consideration by people, take a look at the quote below):
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
It wasn't a "ruling", and that you even bother to further it as such suggests your facts could use a tune up. I await the sources for the rest of the list. (oh, and state churches weren't unconsitutional for a long time; the US Constitution only says Congress shall make no law, perhaps you didn't actually read the clause?).
And Jefferson should be brought up in reference to the First Amendment because he was one of the largest proponents of the Bill of Rights, and it was to a large extent based on his writings and proclamations past. That might have something to do with it. Heck, one wonders why you think only the list of original signers had the right to comment on the bill of rights, when it was added after the original constitution. Jefferson was secreatary of state during that period, and so might have had a teensy bit of input into the first and most dramatic change in the abilities and obligations of the new government to its people under the new Constitution. Your historic knowledge is rather lacking.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JB: note the "in early use" part of the definition:
"the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church recognized by the state."
As the US did not have a state church, that degrades into what I said, basically.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). Believe me, we discussed religion all the time.
