ponderous points...by point
Is America a Christian Nation?
America is a nation whose population is largely Christian
From the CIA World Factbook
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People
Religions:
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?
I don't believe this thread is about whether or not we are a Christian nation, but rather whether the 1st Amendment as written supports the determination made in the Alabama Monument case. 84% certainly seems to qualify as a clear majority based on my math.
In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson
...nor does it establish a religion if stated verbally by a government official or a written equivalent is displayed on public property.
CZ52
The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
What about the Declaration of Independence?
We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The Declaration invokes the authority of these self-evident truths...a common Creator, but that is not relevant to whether a Constitutional
violation of the 1st as quoted occurred in Alabama.
The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
While only relevant based on historical context, I invite you to peruse the quotes attributed to Jefferson here...
http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCat!ReadForm&Count=1000&RestrictToCategory=God they do not conclusively support the claim that he was an Evangelical (as some claim) or one opposed to Christianity as you assert.
What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?
This thread is not about whether the United States should return to Christian roots, rather whether the 1st Amendment prohibits a public display of the Ten Commandments by an elected Judge in Alabama. 86% of Americans in the data provided by the CIA factbook identify with a religion that values the ethical and moral code of conduct the Ten articulate. That provides some validity to the argument that Justice Moore's selection of the Ten is consistent with content that would be appreciated by the majority of the citizens of Alabama. It did not establish any religion or I suspect, alter the CIA demographic statistic in any way.
Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.
Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.
They did not prevent the Congregational Church from being established in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and the supposed Deist Jefferson did not rush to have the Attorney General file suit on behalf of the Danbury Baptists to alter their circumstances...based on the 1st...did he?
If the Declaration of Independence does not carry the weight of law, certainly you are not arguing that the Danbury Baptist letter does?
To answer your question, Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution? The correct answer is, NO.
What does "separation of church and state" mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.
I'd invite those reading this thread to review both the correspondence from and to the Danbury Baptists to see if they agree with your conclusions, both about whether the letter supports a prohibition on the Alabama Monument in any way (I don't see where the correspondence ever was codified into law...other than bogus case law)....and whether this was written by a man who was truly a Deist. Either he was being disengenous about his religiousl beliefs (which calls into question the character of the man and the remaining content of the response) or a he truly shared some common ground with them...which makes the manipulative interpretation of the 1st by those who cite this letter even more fraudulent.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=82
The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.
A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602
I invite readers to peruse this decision to see if they concur that it is "defining" on the subject of Church and State separation. The issue of School Vouchers (which results in the same net circumstance...public money available for educational services provided by a religious insitituion) was fairly recently interpreted in a far different manner.
I offer the following as refutation
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/
What about majority rule?
America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.
Individual right to Free Exercise without the Establishment of a Federal Government religion is what the 1st guarantees.
PROMOTION of religion is not prohibited by the 1st, ESTABLISHMENT by Congressional legislation is.
While you are entitled to your opinion as to whether Moore followed the "wisest policy", there is no Constitutional basis for prohibiting it.
Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?
No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.
To answer your question, yes, it is hostile to religion. It in fact establishes a de-facto religion of Athiesm as the preferred belief system...that being contrary to the 1st as it actually reads.
Removing religious symbols from Public places based on the 1st is not supported by any historical context. If the Congregational Church was allowed to retain its status as official religion in Massachusetts and Connecticut after the notification to that "Deist" Jefferson (who should have been motivated to supply a remedy to that "prohibited activity within the 1st"), certainly Moore's public display of the Ten does not qualify if you are able to actually read and comprehend the content of the 1st.
Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.
Thankfully, the U.S.S.R. and its oppressive regime is no more.
I think you mean, one nation under Allah.
America took the course that the Government not intefere with religion, but instead, guarantee the Free Exercise thereof. Now it is interfering in violation of the 1st.
"Neutrality" by illegal prohibition harms everyone, and nullifies the very freedom the 1st should be guaranteeing.
The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?
Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.
Actually, ratifying the BOR obiligated the states to observe the contents thereof. For what the 14th Actually says, as opposed to the paraphrase offered, read here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
The relevant text regarding equal protection is as follows:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This does not nullify the 1st, it's prohibition on actual Establishment and guarantee of Free Exercise remains. No state constitution was invalidated by these words. Again, the abuse of the English language is required to arrive at the conclusions offered.
What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
This is not relevant as to whether a Alabama Judge violated the 1st in any way, shape or form...which was the Constitutional grounds the Federal judge cited.
What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
The truth about One nation under God...
Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Source: The Associated Press and Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.
As provided by CNN.COM
...and endorsed by a lawyer and Democrat running for President.
http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0626b-pr.html
Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?
Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.
I don't believe anyone would contest that all American law is traced to the Ten Commandments...it is irrational to suggest that a culture that was formed from a largely Christian population whose residents retain an overwhelming identification with Christian religions (according to the CIA factbook) did so without the Ten and Levitical Law having a relevant influence.
That is the motivation for selection of that content Moore claims...he did not establish a religion for the residents of Alabama (although the 1st would not have prohibited Alabama from pursuing that route), or keep anyone from exercising their Free Exercise rights.
Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.
Actually, Jefferson indicated that a Creator endowed us with inalienable rights.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are 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."
Thomas Jefferson
As quoted from...
http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCat!ReadForm&Count=1000&RestrictToCategory=God
Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?
Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.
There is no objective evidence that either of the "objectionable demographic entities" you reference are pursuing an agenda that imposes a morality that on anyone. As I see it, those demographic elements have as much right to participate in the political process as anyone, and their activities are no more legal or illegal based on their demographic allocation than the other groups you reference.
The question of Constitutionality should be based soley upon whether the Constitution has relevance to the case, either by enforcing a prohibition that it actually contains, or guaranteeing a freedom that it includes. If neither test is met, manipulating it for "the public good" is an illegal act worthy of punishment, not praise.
CZ52'
