DeLay says U.S. need not separate church, state

Associated Press ^ | March 1, 2005

[Crackingham]

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said today there is no constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state as the Supreme Court prepared to take up a case challenging the display of the Ten Commandments on the Texas Capitol grounds.

"I hope the Supreme Court will finally read the Constitution and see there's no such thing, or no mention, of separation of church and state in the Constitution," said DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land.

The First Amendment of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Some argue the amendment prohibits activities such as prayer in school and the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas Capitol. But others interpret it more narrowly, saying the founding fathers intended it to prohibit the government from setting up a single denomination as the country's official religion.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to consider whether the 6-foot granite monument on the Capitol Grounds -- bearing the words "I am the Lord thy God" and the commandments -- and two Ten Commandments displays at Kentucky courthouses constitute unconstitutional government establishment of religion.

Several groups were expected to rally outside the Supreme Court for and against removing the monument.

Supporters of keeping the monument on the Capitol grounds say the traditions of Western law are rooted in the Ten Commandments.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who will argue his first case before the high court, said the monument should be considered in the context of how it is displayed.

It is one of 17 on the Capitol grounds and is located at the back of the Capitol near the state's Supreme Court building. He said the monument honors its donors, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and is not stamped with a state seal.

"This is something that is not being endorsed by Texas, but it is like most other displays on the Texas Capitol grounds reflective of honoring the group or entity that donated the monument," he said.

[b4its2late]

He's correct. The State cannot make a Church.

[sourcery]

But others interpret it more narrowly, saying the founding fathers intended it to prohibit the government from setting up a single denomination as the country's official religion.

Right. So Congress is free to make Catholicism and Mormonism the Official Federal Religions (and some percentage of your taxes go to support whichever of those two you'd like.) Yup. That must be what the Framers meant. It's all so clear now...

[JPJones]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

It says Congress can make no law, it doesn't mention states. It was intended to protect state(s) religions, from federal interference.

[little jeremiah]

Ping to self for later pingout.

[teenyelliott]

there is no constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state

Well, no duh. I guess it is too much to ask of Americans, especially elected officials and judges, to actually read the Constitution.

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Bump for my Congressman.

[Let_It_Be_So]

..and just how do you get FROM the constitutional prohibition "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"

TO "So Congress is free to make Catholicism and Mormonism the Official Federal Religions (and some percentage of your taxes go to support whichever of those two you'd like."?

I must have missed something somewhere along the line.

[MamaTexan]

but it is like most other displays on the Texas Capitol grounds reflective of honoring the group or entity that donated the monument," he said.

Oh, BS!

Christianity is part of the Common, or Natural Law. Therefore it is Christianity that is the basis of our government. Religion of any other type is not synonymous with the American experience of Liberty!"

God . . . is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law.

Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration, the Constitution, Original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, and the father of the first organized legal training in America.

"It is the duty as well as the privilege and interest for our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians to be their representatives, as this is a Christian republic

- Justice John Jay, Supreme Court Justice

“It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe: . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essential depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of Public instructions in piety, religion and morality...”

Justice Brewer Trinity v. United States. 1892

In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.

Samuel Adams, Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration

[T]he laws of nature . . . of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and government.

John Quincy Adams

I'm SO sick of these idiots trying to dance around the FACT we are a nation founded on the Christian religion...and the 10 Commandments are part of it!

[woofer2425]

It's time to make a stand for what this country was founded on...namely CHRISTIAN and Jewish morals and values.

[sourcery]

..and just how do you get FROM the constitutional prohibition "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"

TO "So Congress is free to make Catholicism and Mormonism the Official Federal Religions (and some percentage of your taxes go to support whichever of those two you'd like."?

I must have missed something somewhere along the line.

Yes, you did. What you missed is the fact that I am not the one interpreting the Constitution that way. That interpretation comes from "others," as is clearly stated in the article, and which I quoted in my post: "But others interpret it more narrowly, saying the founding fathers intended it to prohibit the government from setting up a single denomination as the country's official religion."

In other words, my post was oozing with sarcasm.

[Shermy]

That amendment was slipped in to prevent Jefferson's continuing efforts to make Deism the state religion.

He had one strike against him already, slipping that "Nature's God" phrase into the Dec. of Independence.

;-)

[Noachian]

"I hope the Supreme Court will finally read the Constitution and see there's no such thing, or no mention, of separation of church and state in the Constitution," said DeLay, ...

What does he mean by "I hope the Supreme Court will finally read the Constitution..."?

When it comes to the federal courts Congress doesn't have to "hope" about anything. Congress has the constitutional authority to change the court system any time it wishes.

If Delay, as House Majority Leader in Congress, wants changes in the courts why doesn't he ask the Supremes to prove that Congress is making laws that will establish a particular religion?

We know how the Supremes have "interpreted" the Constitution's First Amendment all these years, but what we haven't seen was any proof that Congress was attempting to establish a religion. All we have is biased rhetoric from lawyers in Black Robes pretending to be impartial jurists.

[BedRock]

The so-called "Seperation of Church and State" issue is a bit of a misnomer. If one has studied early American historical development and Colonial settlement and growth, one would clearly see that the Church/religion played an integral role in the early American establishment, including our Historic Documents, and the way the Founder's conducted themselves in both their everyday and political lifestyles. Anyone who would try and suggest otherwise is only trying to kid his/herself.

If we take faith of a Higher Being out of the American lifestyle, it only leads us to another type of religion, one of either secularism or atheism. Either way we end up with an ism. An ism is simply another form of doctrines or beliefs. Why should Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., be forced to accept the beliefs of these isms when we have our own that we whole heartedly accept with great passion?

If this is allowed to be carried out, will this not make the Government (all branches inclusive), through collusion with the Courts, whether it be through action or inaction, in direct violation with the first phrase of the First Amendment; And I quote,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

The First Amendment gives limitations on what CONGRESS can do with the citizens rights as a whole, NOT on what the restrictions of the PEOPLE are in what they can do with thier freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment...

If they allow the abolishment of diety worshiping religious symbols, sayings, and actions from the public arena, yet allow the secularist movement to prevail with spreading their beleif that secularism is better for America, have they not in essence after all "respected an establishment of a religion"? One that recognizes a total rejection of any type of religion and religious considerations that are favorable to, to use the words of the Framers of our Constitution, A CREATOR.

This type of thinking by the Courts is known as secularism, and as the word is defined it is essentially the first step toward Atheism.

This in essence would be exactly AGAINST what the First Amendment was originally intended and worded to protect Americans citizens FROM...!!

[goldstategop]

Do we have a right to publicly acknowledge God as the Author of all our rights? That's the real question. To say we need to "secularize" the spiritual sources of our national self misses the point. That we are a Judeo-Christian Nation and that our laws are rooted in the ideas and mores of The Bible. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. The First Amendment should be strictly read as prohibiting the government from establishing a state church but nothing more. The presence of religious beliefs in the public square is not in and of itself a violation of any one's rights. No theocracy is being established because our leaders acknowledge His existence.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[newfarm4000n]

It's time to make a stand for what this country was founded on...namely CHRISTIAN and Jewish morals and values.

WRONG it was founded on BRITISH and PROTESTANT values. Imagine if this was a Spanish catholic "Christian " ex-colony. No offense to present day catholics.