Is the separation of church and state a lie?

[redneck2]

If the founding fathers were so intent on seperation of church and state, why did they preside over Sunday services in some government buildings after 1776?? Listened to this one day when Walter Williams was filling in for Rush. IIRC, he teaches Constitutional Studies at James Mason so I suspect he knows.

Jeez...all you have to do is read most any of the letters and documents written by Jefferson, Washington, James Mason, etc. Nearly every one mentions God.

They did not want an "official" religion (Church of England) that was endorsed and promoted by the government.

The big problem that I see (and I assume they recognized) is that, if there's a government sponsored religion, the masses get swayed pretty easily. Look at fundamental Muslin countries as an example. When the Shah was in Iran, there were Catholics, Jews, Christians, and about every other religion you could name, and they got along pretty well. The fundamental Muslims get in power and it's death to anyone that doesn't agree with you. Reflects what happened here with the Puritans, etc.

 

[the 22 junkie]

I tend to have a natural bias agianst the christian right wingers for hijacking the republican party, but really, why does she even care? The seperation of church and state is a good thing, like the seperation of big buisness and state. Good lord, some god fearing person wants to make themsleves sound like a wacko fundamentalist by talking about how I sin and am a bad person, well good on them. But when the try to infringe on my rights in the name of God then it gets serious. She's obviously a nutcase for using something non-existant as proof that we don't need rights to abortion and to same sex marriage. Anti-freedom is still anti-freedom, no matter what flag it flies.

[flame-suit on]

 

[dragongoddess]

Want a religous government. Then I suggest you look overseas then reconsider if that is what you want. If it is I can promie you that there will be riots.Killings. Bombings. Kidnappings. Plus what you are now seeing in Iraq. THat is what religon brings to government.

 

[wQuay]

Want a religous government. Then I suggest you look overseas then reconsider if that is what you want. If it is I can promie you that there will be riots.Killings. Bombings. Kidnappings. Plus what you are now seeing in Iraq. THat is what religon brings to government.

As opposed to a government founded by atheists? Like, for example,
Soviet Russia? At least the Islamists are fighting for an idea. All our leaders worship
is power and money.

 

[gc70]

Just because the founder/history of the ACLU is one way, doesn't mean the actions of the ACLU presently are the same. If you can list some examples of the ACLU acting against the bill of rights, please link it.

The ACLU absolutely always acts to enforce the Bill of Rights. It is the ACLU's highly selective enforcement of certain aspects of the Bill of Rights, while refusing to act on others such as the RKBA, that is objectionable.

Mount Soledad War Memorial

Ruling on a 15-year-old ACLU case, a federal judge today ordered the city of San Diego to remove a mountain-top cross within 90 days or face a fine of $5,000 a day.

Kelo vs New London

The Institute for Justice that provided the legal counsel for the plaintiffs in Kelo vs. New London states that although local ACLU chapters have occasionally provided amicus curiae briefs in other disputes, the national ACLU did not sign on in Kelo because they have not yet developed a policy on it.

You have to reread that. They have not developed a policy on it yet. Property rights, a cornerstone of personal liberty and ACLU has not developed a policy on it yet. Property rights are enshrined in the Fifth Amendment and throughout the Constitution and ACLU has not developed a policy on it yet.

 

[Baba Louie]

As long as we worship at the altar of business both great and small with our salvation being the almighty dollar, sprinkle in a little hedonism now and then, tithe our 35% to our beloved Uncle, all is well. Some moral value is good. Too much and we step on other's rights.

Is separation of church and state a lie? Nah, just a real good idea. Don't know if I want our nation's laws and those in power based on a talking burning shrub, symbolic cannabilism or death to non-believers... just seems so... extreme at face value.

But that's just me. And this coming from a man who practically grew up in a church where politics and judgemental opinion was the order of the day.

Just shut up and drink the kool-aid Baba...

 

[RealGun]

This is one of my favorite topics, but I never considered it "on topic" for THR. I think I will refrain from participating in a thread that inevitably will be closed for poor behavior, accomplishing nothing particularly related to gun ownership.

America needs to have this dialog, but any pretense of belonging on THR will be abstract at best.

 

[DMF]

As for court decisions, look at basically any case decided before the 1940's. They all ruled against what we would call separation of church and state. Sure, there was a huge paradigm change in the SC in the 1930-1940s, but it had to do with personal and philosophical opinions of the justices, not legitimate Constitutional reasoning.

Well before you make such statements you should research the facts.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145 Reynolds v. US (1879)

Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: '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 his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

 

[DMF]

In any case, those of you who quoted the court's opinion as solid proof for separation of church and state, seeing the decisions they have handed down recently, are you sure that you want them to be the final arbiter of all Constitutional matters?

Whether anyone posting here wants them to be or not, they are because the "founding fathers" set them up to be.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/ Article III of the Constitution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&invol=137 Marbury v. Madison (1803)

. . . The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

 

[gunsmith]

here is the letter

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

 

[gunsmith]

What ticks me off

is that the Godless libs love to use this one Jefferson letter
to enact their petty laws preventing children from
praying in schools and Boy Scouts from meeting
on Army bases, but they would never let us gunnies use his other letters
which refer to his beliefs about our right to carry guns to enact leglislation.

Whats good for the goose and so forth

 

[bouis]

If you want a real historical analysis of the 1st amendment, how it was originally interpreted, and why Thomas Jefferson is a terrible a terrible source for its interpretation (Hint: he was in France when it was written...), and why the "wall of separation" metaphor is not proper, look to Rehnquist's dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree here:

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

(...)

The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. (citations omitted). As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.

(emphasis added, some citations removed).

I have to say, that this is the best analysis of what the 1st amendment means, and why the modern Court has it wrong.

You won't feel like you've wasted your time if you read it. I promise.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Is the separation of church and state a lie?

Yes. That phrase appears nowhere in the U.S. or any State Constitution that I am aware of. The First Amendment's intent was to keep a specific denomination (Episcopal, Prespyterian, Baptist, etc.) from becoming THE specific funded by everybody church of the Union. (Like the Church of England was to the Episcopal church). In no way did the Founding Fathers intend that the church per se have nothing to do with the state.

 

[JohnBT]

"The First Amendment's intent was to keep a specific denomination (Episcopal, Prespyterian, Baptist, etc.) from becoming THE specific funded by everybody church of the Union."

Just keep repeating it until they get it. It's really not as complicated as most folks believe. The goal twofold: to prohibit mandatory tax support of churches and permit individuals to worship as they pleased.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm

"In Virginia, the American Revolution led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church, which had been tied closely to the royal government. Then the question arose as to whether the new state should continue to impose taxes to be used for the support of all recognized churches. The proposal had a number of supporters who, even if they no longer accepted an established church, still believed that religion should be supported by the public purse.

For some Virginians, however, imposing religion on people smacked of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom would later be president of the United States, argued that religious beliefs should be solely matters of individual conscience and completely immune from any interference by the state. Moreover, religious activity of any sort should be wholly voluntary. Not only did they oppose taxing people to support an established church, but they also objected to forcing people to pay taxes even for their own church. To Jefferson, a high wall of separation should always keep church and state apart."

 

[richyoung]

Want a religous government. Then I suggest you look overseas then reconsider if that is what you want. If it is I can promie you that there will be riots.Killings. Bombings. Kidnappings. Plus what you are now seeing in Iraq. THat is what religon brings to government.

Yeah, that Dahli Lama, what a violent guerilla he turned out to be...and remember those Buddah led massacres?

 

[Doug.38PR]

For the last 1900 years we in the West have had a Christian form of government in one form or another (whether directly ruled by the church or at least run by men who sought counsel from the church and saw it as an important necessity in life). Why all of a sudden now do we think an athiestic or secular form of government will be suitable? (Like Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler, Stalin, Robspierre, etc.) Seems like that is far far worse than an official established church.

 

[tellner]

For Ms. Harris it probably is a lie. She has also stated that it doesn't matter what she does on Earth, it will all be alright in Heaven because she believes in Jesus. Personally, I despise that sort of smug, conscienseless form of bargain-basement salvation. "I've played my Get Out of Hell Free card, so I can be a cruel, selfish, lying bastard and get away with it." I'm betting that the whole "Get thee hence, I never knew thee" line was meant for people like that.

The revisionists and theocrats have always enjoyed denying the legal tradition of the separation of Church and State. But it becomes blatantly obvious exactly why it's necessary when they get a little power. Suddenly "freedom" means "freedom to choose from two or three acceptable brands of what I believe in". Or you get utter failures and cockups like the Pilgrim Fathers who leeched off their neighbors, later enslaved and destroyed them and thought that religious freedom meant the freedom to rob and beat Jews, Quakers and Catholics.

A Christian form of government? No. Take off the rose-colored glasses and take a good look at "Christian" forms of government. Christianity is built on authority and force down at the bottom. Comply or be tortured forever (or killed outright, depends on your theology). Where the Church has been strong you have gotten the Divine Right of Kings or at least rigid control by a priestly government. G-d is the head of the king. The king is the head of the men. The men are the head of the women. Disagreement is heresy and subject to severe punishment as a crime against G-d Himself.

Parliamentary governments and our own Great Experiment are precisely the result of casting off the crushing yoke of the Church. The essence of these forms is that it is "derived from the consent of the governed". The people of whatever the local political class are the final authority. You don't go back to the Gospels or the Quran or the Torah for your authority. Consider our own form of government. Separation of powers, representatives (although not necessarily senators) chosen by the people, an explicit rejection of religion as a test of fitness for office (Article VI of what our President calls "that damned piece of paper"), limits on the authority of the rulers and compromise including the Great Compromise. These are not the hallmarks of a government founded on the Christian religion with its emphasis on authority, infallibility, Divine guidance and death to the unbelievers. That would be more like France under Richlieu (whom I personally admire), Spain after the Reconquista or under Franco, or England under Mary or Elisabeth.

Where the Church was strong, freedom was always weak. Where democratic or republican principles were strong the Church and its doctrines withered as a part of government. Liberty can not exist where the government claims Divine Mandate and the overwhelming authority of the Most High.

I note that groups like the Southern Baptists were strong supporters of Separation right up until the late 20th century. They understood through painful experience just what happened to people like them when some other faith got its festering tentacles entwined in the reins of power. Unfortunately, under Reagan and the rise of the politicized Religious Right they forgot their history and began pushing for their religion to be the de facto State religion.

Look at one of the fastest growing religious-political movements in the US. The Reconstructionists and their brethren such as the Dispensationalists are absolutely against any form of democracy. They make no bones about their desire to do away with G-dless forms of governance such as democracy and replace it with a "Christian Republic" which will establish Protestantism as the basis for government, Leviticus as the law of the land, and no civil rights for non-believers. That is about as unAmerican as it gets. That is the epitome of Christian government. People like that hate people like my wife and me, so I will fight it quite literally to the death. Preferably theirs if they go back to cross burnings, the Inquisition, expulsions, torture, murder, rape and all the other traditional tools of Christian government.

Am I being bitter or extreme? No. Not at all. This is precisely what history teaches us happens when the Church and the State join in unholy and abominable congress.

 

[tcgeol]

In any case, those of you who quoted the court's opinion as solid proof for separation of church and state, seeing the decisions they have handed down recently, are you sure that you want them to be the final arbiter of all Constitutional matters?

Whether anyone posting here wants them to be or not, they are because the "founding fathers" set them up to be.

Citing a SC decision (Marbury vs. Madison) saying that they have the authority to rule as they do isn't exactly the most persuasive of arguments. Many constitutional scholars think that they ruled the wrong way on this case, too. I would say exactly the same as they do, if I were in their shoes. That doesn't make it accurate. Do you think that Kelo was right? How about some of the interstate commerce cases? Maybe you like the way they ruled on Miller? They can rule based on personal preferences, and that isn't Constitutional regardless of how you cut it.

 

[ceetee]

Is this the same Christianity that says:

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

FWIW. I also subscribe to the notion that a man's religion is a matter between himself and his God. I see no possible good coming from any government sponsorship or censorship of any religion, excepting that some practices of some religions may not be the most sanitary (live animal sacrifices come to mind).

I just find it interesting that this chickie, who not long ago was the Golden Girl of the Republican Party is now so far out on the fringe that the party is running ads that say, "Jeb Bush was right. Katherine Harris can't win".

As for those of you who are still insisting that every vote was counted, and that the evil Democrats were trying to steal the election... get a life. Do some research. Kathering Harris, and the Supreme Court of the United States acted (along with a large cast of other Republican movers and shakers) to ensure that Florida laws were not followed, and that all votes that were supposed to be counted were not. If you think otherwise... well, I'm certainly glad you're not the ones writing our history books.

Personally, both candidates that year were so distateful to me that I almost skipped voting altogether. I did vote, though, and even to this day, I have no idea whether or not my vote was counted.

Edited to add: You can research any of my previous posts, and you will find that I care less about who wins, than I do about the process. The voting process, and government of the people, by the people, and for the people is what mainly separates us from the rest of the world. It's the one thing of America that we should ALL agree on as being inviolable...

 

[Helmetcase]

Let's posit for a moment that you guys who are in favor of breaking down the church/state dichotomy are onto something (which is a scary thought in my book, and isn't supported by any relevant recent caselaw).

What role in govt do you propose for the church?

Have you really thought about the ramifications of what you're espousing?

Reading some history might change your opinion about "hyperbolic nonsense."

The crap you read on WorldNetDaily from google searches is not "history" any more than the National Enquirer is the "news".

 

[DMF]

Citing a SC decision (Marbury vs. Madison) saying that they have the authority to rule as they do isn't exactly the most persuasive of arguments.

If you had been paying attention you would have noticed my first citation was of Article III of the Constitution. The quote from Marbury fully explains how the authority of the judiciary as laid out in Article III makes it necessary for the judiciary to decided on matters where the law might conflict with the Constitution.

Many constitutional scholars think that they ruled the wrong way on this case, too.

Just who are these so called Constitutional scholars, and what exactly do they think is wrong with the claim that when there is a conflict between a statute and the Constitution that the judiciary must side with the Constitution?

 

[bouis]

The Constitution says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, and if a politically-minded Supreme Court holds that the "Living Constitution" has outgrown that guarantee, a future Court should not be and indeed is not bound by that decision.

Recent caselaw that's clearly erroneous is irrelevant. Plain and simple.

 

[DMF]

bouis, well if you want to cut out the Court from it's ability to determine if a law conflicts with the Constitution then you all will it would take is an act of Congress to eliminate your 2A rights? Are you comfortable with idea that Congress could pass a bill to outlaw all firearms, without amending the Constitution, and the President could sign the bill into law, and you would have no ability to challenge the law in the courts? That is what you, and others on this thread are advocating if you want to ignore the judicial authority in Article III.

 

[Jkwas]

Great, just what the world needs: Another theocracy.

Look at Theocracies around the world. That's why there has to be seperation of church and state.

Without it, there is no democracy. Only the laws of the religion that the government adheres to and governs by.

"I will choose the path that's clear, I will choose Free-will" Rush

I no longer vote. I stopped when our government started picking our leaders for us, and made voting a "feel good" thing we do to think we actually have a say in governing ourselves. I feel like part of me has died, and we all have been deceived.

 

[Helmetcase]

But it's such an attractive argument, isn't it? The founding fathers were pro-gun...which we like! Well, they also wrote a lot about the relationship between God and our rights...so shouldn't we work to tear down the walls between church and state? NO!

The founding fathers also tended to own slaves as well. Just because somebody thought it was a good idea in 1775 doesn't mean it is today.

Some ideals endure--we still value free speech, the right to self defense and to bear arms, the right to petition your govt to fix what's wrong with it or to choose to have a religion or have no religion at all...these rights endure because they are timeless.

By way of contrast, A) injecting religion into our govt has some really negative ramifications and potential for disaster, and B) isn't necessary. It's an idea whose time is past.

Keep your religion to yourself, and outta my govt.