Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The Establishment Clause

The Constitutional Principle:Separation of Church and State ^ | N/A | Researched and edited by Jim Allison

[Kerberos]

Thought for the day.

These should be required reading in an era in which many are advocating the conjoining of church and state. The current reading could be of service to many who support the bluntly unconstitutional faith based imitative that his currently be foisted upon us without congressional approval.

[rwfromkansas]

You need to read Madison's own interpretation of the amendment when he introduced it in Congress.

[Kerberos]

"You need to read Madison's own interpretation of the amendment when he introduced it in Congress."

Ok, well why don't you post it then.

[Van Jenerette]

...reading.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Here is a starting point. I'll search for more when I have time, with the faith based initiatives you find so offensive specifically in mind. BTW, unless you are giving equal thought to the free exercise clause, you will never completely understand what our founders were saying.

The Claremont Institute
This is the print version of http://www.claremont.org/writings/19970000anton.html.

---

The Imaginary "Wall of Separation" Between Church and State

By Michael Anton
Posted January 1, 1997

How high is the "wall" separating church from state in this country? According to a California school district, it's higher than the Downey High baseball field's outfield fence.

Ed DiLoreto, a local businessman, bought advertising space on the fence two years ago with the intent of posting the Ten Commandments. School officials, claiming fear of litigation, directed him to check on its legality—which he did, and government agencies from the local school board to the state Attorney General all replied that the district could not refuse his sign.

But rather than post the Commandments, district officials rescinded their policy of selling ads and removed every placard in the district. Mr. DiLoreto is suing, on the grounds that the move violates his rights to free speech and religious expression. The district counters that any religious message displayed on the grounds of a public school would violate the Constitutional "wall" separating church and state. Would it? Only according to some peculiar rulings of the modern Supreme Court.

The "wall of separation," which in the liberal imagination is more formidable than the Great Wall of China, was not intended by our Founding Fathers to preclude any connection between religion and public life in this country. It was meant primarily to do two things: make political rights independent of religious belief, and thereby avert the bloody religious conflicts that had convulsed Europe for centuries; and secure every individual's fundamental right of conscience.

The actual text of the First Amendment makes this perfectly clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Notice, incidentally, that the phrase "wall of separation" does not appear. Those famous words actually occur in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, while serving as President, to a religious association—a message he ends with a prayer!

So how high did Jefferson view the wall? Not so high to prevent him from including prayers in both of his inaugural addresses, and in many of his other public pronouncements. Nor so high to preclude religious services, which as President he sometimes attended, from being held in the Hall of the House of Representatives.

As countless similar examples prove, neither he nor the other Founders thought that such activities violated the First Amendment. In fact, the very day that Congress passed that Amendment (Sept. 24, 1789), it issued the first call for a National Day of Prayer. As the Founders understood, forbidding the establishment of religion is not the same thing as outlawing all public expression of religious sentiment. Far from desiring the latter, they believed that government had a duty actively to encourage religious belief.

The consensus among them finds its best expression in the Northwest Ordinance, the law that governed the first U.S. Territory—the future states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. The beginning of Article III reads, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government . . ."

To execute this doctrine, the Ordinance specifies that in each township a lot of public land "be given perpetually for the purposes of religion." Of course, this could never happen today—the Supreme Court has seen to that.

In 1947, the Court ruled it unconstitutional for government "to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion," and thereby transformed the "establishment clause," as it was until then known, into the "separation clause"—despite the fact that this kind of radical separation is neither mandated nor mentioned.

Subsequent decisions, largely thanks to the efforts of ideologues at the ACLU, have extended this doctrine to the point that government cannot be involved in even the most indirect way with anything remotely religious.

Which brings us back to Mr. DiLoreto. He wants to put up the Ten Commandments where kids can see them because he believes that they are good rules to live by. Even those who oppose his lawsuit don't disagree. But because the Commandments are "associated with religion" (a modern way of saying that they are the word of God), school officials don't want them posted on public property. They invoke the authority of the Supreme Court and say, in effect, "it's not our decision—it's the law."

Is it? Not according to either the letter or spirit of the Constitution—nor even the findings of all those government lawyers whom the district had Mr. DiLoreto to consult. Mr. DiLoreto deserves to win his lawsuit, just as the American people deserve to have the original intent of the establishment clause restored to them.

Michael Anton is a fellow of the Claremont Institute.

---

Copyright © 1997, The Claremont Institute.

Visit the Claremont Institute at claremont.org.

[nosofar]

"These should be required reading in an era in which many are advocating the conjoining of church and state. "

Examples? I'm sure you can find someone if you look hard enough, but you say 'many'. I assume this is relative to 10 or 20 years ago. And please don't confuse 'church' with 'religion' as I suspect you're in the habit of doing.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

President Bush's Faith-Based Initiative

Home

Government Cooperation with Faith Based Charities & the Separation of Church and State
President Bush set off a firestorm among liberals Monday, when he signed executive orders establishing offices to work with community organizations, including faith-based charities, in the White House and 5 federal agencies. President Bush will also propose a legislative package to implement the cooperation. You can find the full story at The Washington Times, but we'll focus on the liberals' criticism, that Mr. Bush's orders violate the "separation of church and state." Does the Constitution really require a separation of church and state? The answer is yes, it does, but not the complete separation demanded by godless liberals or the unprincipled separation sketched out in recent, confusing Supreme Court cases addressing the subject. The phrase "separation of church and state" was first used by President Thomas Jefferson, who attended church services held in the House of Representatives, in this letter to a Baptist congregation in Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists were worried the new Constitution might require them to pay taxes for the support of ministers of other denominations, as the British government had required. Jefferson assured them this was not the case, because the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state." What most Americans do not realize is that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution. The First Amendment's religious clauses actually state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The clause was written by Founding Father Fisher Ames, who later wrote articles about why the Bible had to be used in school. To understand Jefferson's "separation" then, we must understand what constitutes an "establishment" and a "religion." An 1853 report by the Senate Judiciary Committee quoted in the book Original Intent says an "establishment" requires 3 components: 1. endowment at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other 2. exclusive political rights 3. compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances These factors relate directly to the way colonial Britain enforced the establishment of the Anglican denomination upon its colonies. The word religion, in fact, means "denomination, as the Senate report makes clear: "They [the Founders] intended, by this Amendment, to prohibit an "establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people...they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy." Indeed, if the Founders had intended for the Constitution to divorce our government from any relationship to God, they would have made the very document that established our nation, the Declaration of Independence, unconstitutional. The Declaration grounds our right to freedom on "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," a verbatim quote from the law book that stated the basis of English law and liberty, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. You can read the section of Blackstone from which the Declaration was taken here. The ideas of English liberty articulated by Blackstone represent almost 1200 years of evolution in the history of ideas, beginning with the conversion of Britain by Augustine in 597, passing through Magna Carta, and then through the Reformation. During this period, Judeo-Christian ideas from the Bible became the basis of English law and government, creating equality, and establishing the basis from which freedom and prosperity grew. Since President Bush's new executive orders and proposed legislation do not involve the 3 components that establish a religion, they do not in any way fall afoul of the Constitution. But if this history is so clear, how is it possible for liberals to even make the argument that government cooperation with faith-based charities could violate the "separation of church and state"? The answer is that most people - even lawyers - do not know this history. Now you do!	Original Intent describes the relationship between government and religion in America up to the early 1800s in detail. It is the most comprehensive source for understanding the true intent of the Constitution's religious clauses. The Tragedy of American Compassion shows how, prior to FDR's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society - the government takeover of charity - private charities of every sort existed in America and were much more effective at combating social problems than the government is today.

---

President Bush's Faith-Based Initiative

Home

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Article on the subject by Jim Towey, Director of the WH Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If you think the Founders supported the doctrine of separation of church and state, consider these quotes:

The U.S. Supreme Court in The Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. said, "Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, and preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind." Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court once thought that the U.S. could not have good government without religion.

The U.S. Supreme Court also said in the same case, "Our laws and our institution must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extend, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." Has one word of the Constitution been changed since the court issued this decision in 1892, a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, declaring that America is emphatically Christian?

Consider these words from the Northwest Ordinance, approved by Congress in 1789, "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, school and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." There it is again, we must have religion if we are going to have good government, and they tie religion to schools. In fact, the very first English Bibles printed in America were paid for by the U.S. Congress with public money, and inside the cover of those Bibles it says that they were for use in our schools.

John Adams, our second president said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the House in the early days of the Republic, said, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or by the bayonet." Judge Roy Moore is right. The Bible is the basis for our laws. We end up with more government and less freedom when we refuse to be governed by morality and religion.

James Madison said, "We have staked the whole future of American Civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institution...upon the capacity of of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

George Washington, our first president and the father of our country, said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Consider these additional quotes that demonstrate that the Founders were overtly Christian, not just religious men. Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been offered asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Multi-culturalism to the Founders did not mean that we ceased to be a Christian nation, but that we were tolerant of others and allowed them to worship freely. We did not force them to become Christians and they did not force our nation to cease to be Christian.

The final version of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Part of the legislative history of the First Amendment includes a longer version that included the words, "...nor shall any national religion be established...". That's what the First Amendment was about, prohibiting Congress from establishing a national church.

Excerpted from this webpage: http://www.newswithviews.com/Bill/sizemore8.htm

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Bottom line: your example is just not applicable. No one wants the U.S. federal government to buy land for the purpose of establishing a Baptist Church.

[Kerberos]

Thank you for your excellent post. It has brought some exciting and thought provoking reading to the discussion.

Although the Claremont Institute is generally regarded as a reputable and rational organization even organization like Claremont can from time to time present opinions which lack merit. I unfortunately do not have time to refute Mr. Anton’s argument however I find that the California Appellate Court has already eloquently done so in their ruling on the appeal of Edward DiLoreto v Board of Education of the Downey Unified School District.

While Mr. Anton presents some cogent and factual arguments in his piece, he also presents a sterling example as to how one can development sound arguments but still arrive at erroneous conclusions. Much as Karl Marx’s work in the Communist Manifesto is in theory a profound political science document, although based on some faulty assumptions, but however fails completely in practical application.

I will present a link to the ruling of the Appellate court at the end of this article for those who would like to review it but it should be noted at this time that Mr. DiLoreto claim of violation of the free exercise clause and of the establishment clause, of both the California and Federal Constitution, failed in both the court of original jurisdiction (via summary judgment) and also in the appellate court. Mr. DiLoreto apparently did not pursue the matter further presumably under advise from counsel as to the further indefensibility of his claim.

The Appellate Court discussion presents some great articulation as to how to properly interpret the free exercise clause and the establishment clause as it applies to the case in question and how they relate to each other. They also go on to demonstrate how the California State Attorney Generals office issued a faulty opinion in the matter due to lack of complete information as to the factual matters in the case, apparently the same as Mr. Anton. They also highlight how some of today’s religious zealots provide a disservice to the community at large, and in this case an egregious disservice to the local school in the case, and further hamper the government from providing comprehensive public school education, something that I am of the opinion that our schools absolutely cannot afford.

Again thanks for bringing your article to the discussion. The case may be found at: Edward DiLoreto v Board of Education of the Downey Unified School District

[Kerberos]

"The U.S. Supreme Court in The Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. said, "Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, and preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind." Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court once thought that the U.S. could not have good government without religion.

Times change, as do opinions with the acquisition of knowledge.

[Kerberos]

"Bottom line: your example is just not applicable. No one wants the U.S. federal government to buy land for the purpose of establishing a Baptist Church."

Try to deal with the subject matter in terms of concept.

[Kerberos]

Ping

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Try to deal with the subject matter in terms of concept.

The concept is that you think faith-based groups should be discriminated against based solely on their religious beliefs and excluded from participating in providing services. But your example is not congruent with that concept. Your example was about whether or not the U.S. government should purchase land for the sole purpose of establishing a Baptist Church. It was not about whether or not a Baptist Church can participate in government programs, but whether or not the government can establish a Baptist Church.

[Freakazoid]

John Adams, our second president said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

That, in a nutshell, is why we are forced down the road of amending the constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. So many in our society are immoral and irreligious.

[inquest]

"You need to read Madison's own interpretation of the amendment when he introduced it in Congress."

Ok, well why don't you post it then.

At the time, the language under discussion in Congress was "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." The "establishment" part of this article is essentially the same as what we see in the amendment that was adopted. Madison stated that this means "that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."

This is very different from what he stated in his veto message, when he misquoted the amendment in saying that Congress couldn't make a law respecting a "religious establishment", as if to imply that Congress couldn't pass a law affecting churches at all.

Anyway the reference to the 1789 congressional record can be found here. (next to "Turn to image", type in 757)

(Incidentally, this sheds light on another debate that's been going on on FR, regarding the applicability of clauses in the Constitution that don't specifically mention Congress. The clause that they were discussing at the time didn't mention anything about Congress, yet Madison made it clear that it was referring to Congress, and no one contradicted him)

[Kerberos]

"The concept is that you think faith-based groups should be discriminated against based solely on their religious beliefs and excluded from participating in providing services"

I have nowhere in any of my post suggested, or even eluded to faith based groups being discriminated against. That is something you have conjured up.

What I have said is that I want the Constitution upheld under the 1st Amendment. I want government out of the religion business and I want religion, which I cannot imagine why any self respecting church would want the government in their church, out of government business.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Moonman62]

Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court once thought that the U.S. could not have good government without religion.

Thomas Jefferson thought the same thing, but not until he became president. And I've seen him credited with being the originator of the concept of the wall of separation church and state.

[Moonman62]

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."

Imagine that. A president using the veto because of constitutional concerns. CFR anyone?