Article 1 of the bill of rights vs seperation of church and state

Oct 16 2001 | Self

[DCBurgess58]

I have been pondering the questions surrounding governmental expressions of christianity versus the left wing ideal of a "separation of church and state". First of all I would like to quote the exact verbage from the United States Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

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 consider myself to be an intelligent man, capable of deducing the obvious intent of the founding fathers with respect to the first amendment. They have CLEARLY stated that Congress has no authority to outlaw any particular religions. No more, no less. They were not rejecting Christianity or eliminating it from government. In fact they were Christian men creating a Christian nation in which religious tolerance was the norm. Then they CLEARLY stated that Congress could not make any laws regulating how individuals worshipped their religions. The ideas they were expressing here were the result of Catholic, Protestant, Church of England conflicts which were so traumatic in Europe. The Founding Father's intent was to keep Congress from being used as a tool of religious intolerance... that's all... period!! Furthermore, the restriction ONLY APPLIES TO LAWS OF CONGRESS. It does not apply to the presidency, the judiciary, states, counties, cities, universities, schools or any thing else. So where the heck does the judiciary come off eliminating or regulating ANY governmental expression of christianity, judaism or whatever? The first ammendment of the Bill of Rights ONLY regulates laws made by congress and CLEARLY states that. If you don't like your city council spending tax dollars on nativity scenes at Christmas, vote them out of office. Finally, I would like to ask two questions, as I do not know the answers. Perhaps some of you Freepers do know the answers.

1) How long has the phrase "In god we trust" been in governmental usage?

2) How long has the term "separation of church and state" been in use?

[DCBurgess58]

The Establishment Clause has generally come to mean that government cannot authorize a church, cannot pass laws that aid or favor one religion over another, cannot pass laws that favor religious belief over non belief, cannot force a person to profess a belief. In short, government must be neutral toward religion and cannot be entangled with any religion.

Your post is exactly what the problem is.... Let's revisit the first ammendment:

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

No generally come to mean about it... No government... Just Congress and Congress making laws... The rest is B.S. dreamed up in the courts

[dhuffman@awod.com]

You mean like taxes?

[Fixit]

You left out an important piece of source material, notably Article VI of the US Constitution, with says, in part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[Fixit]

Sorry, replace "with" with "which".

[Budge]

how can a theory be taught as fact anyway

Because most of the evidence points to it as being correct?

It still remains a theory. Why are there still monkeys?

[OWK]

I pay property taxes. Out of those taxes, public schools are funded. They teach evolution as fact in these schools. I don't believe whatsoever in evolution. Yet I pay for this. Creationism is not allowed. I believe in the Creator, but He is not allowed in school.

This too (public shooling) is wholely and completely immoral.

(not to mention a socialistic failure)

[OWK]

I don't think many would agree with forced prayer. We just want to be allowed to pray. Like the pledge, those who want to join in can, the rest can have enough decorum to remain silent for 1 minute.

I have every respect for your devotion to your God. You should certainly be allowed to pray. You should even have the opportunity to have your children taught whatever religious instruction you desire, right in school. You should not be subjected to ideas (abortion, homosexual normalization, evolution, etc.) that you don't want.

That's what makes public schools immoral on their very face. They are funded by force, and they subject parents to unwanted ideas.

Eliminate public schools altogether, give parents back the money that is siezed from them by force to pay for it, and let the parents purchase the education they want for their children on the free market.

Socialism is the root of MOST of the problems in this country.

[aruanan]

Is it moral, to compel a man to pay for the advancement of ideas he does not share or condone?

Yes, it is. Criminals are made to pay for the advancement of ideas that they do not share or condone. They are also made to pay for the advancement of ideas that they do condone but which society does not. You cannot have a society in which every individual's own moral code is the only rule that he follows. That, simply by definition, is not a society. It's just a bus full of people sharing no other relationship except being physically present in the same location. Any society (religious or civil) has overall characteristics and expectations to which members of society are expected to conform. Some of these expectations are general and those who don't fit are called eccentric. Some of them are absolute and those who don't fit in are called criminal or insane.

[OWK]

Criminals are made to pay for the advancement of ideas that they do not share or condone.

Criminals offer moral surrender of their claim to the protections afforded by inalienable rights, when they make the decision to violate the rights of others.

[A2J]

"You cannot have a society in which every individual's own moral code is the only rule that he follows."

You just blew a wide, gaping hole in the side of the S.S. Libertarian, and she's taking on water fast.

[aruanan]

Criminals offer moral surrender of their claim to the protections afforded by inalienable rights, when they make the decision to violate the rights of others.

Even criminals who don't violate the rights of others? Unless, of course, you're saying that any violation of "the law" is, in itself, a violation of the rights of others. You just strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.

[OWK]

Even criminals who don't violate the rights of others? Unless, of course, you're saying that any violation of "the law" is, in itself, a violation of the rights of others. You just strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.

You have it the wrong way around (and unfortunately so often does government).

Anything that does not violate the rights of others, is not a crime.

[BikerNYC]

Furthermore, the restriction ONLY APPLIES TO LAWS OF CONGRESS.

Now read the Fourteenth Amendment:

"... 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...."

If I have a "prviledge" of being afforded rights under the First Amendment, then no State can make a law that would deny me those rights. The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to afford people no less than the same rights they are afforded under the Federal Constitution. States can grant additional rights than are given under the Federal Constitution, but they cannot provide for less.

[gdani]

Furthermore, the restriction ONLY APPLIES TO LAWS OF CONGRESS. It does not apply to the presidency, the judiciary, states, counties, cities, universities, schools or any thing else. So where the heck does the judiciary come off eliminating or regulating ANY governmental expression of christianity, judaism or whatever? The first ammendment of the Bill of Rights ONLY regulates laws made by congress and CLEARLY states that.

The 14th Amendment aside, I hope that you're not saying that city councils, state universities, etc should be constitutionally permitted to limit the other freedoms in the First Amendment (assembly, speech, etc) because the First Amendment explicitly says "Congress".

So where the heck does the judiciary come off eliminating or regulating ANY governmental expression of christianity, judaism or whatever?

The Bill of Rights is for the people not the government. That's why people, in theory, are free to exercise their religion and engage in religious-themed speech without undue govt interference. These same freedoms do not apply to the Govt, though.

By the way, I think it was Roger Williams (name right?), who I believe went on to found Rhode Island as a sort of refuge for religious minorities, that coined a phrase very similar to "separation of church & state" about 150 years before Jefferson's Danbury letter. (And contrary to your claims, America was certainly no beacon of religious tolerance at time. Just ask people familiar with the history of Catholics, Congregationalists, etc during these times).

[FreeTally]

You have it the wrong way around (and unfortunately so often does government).

Anything that does not violate the rights of others, is not a crime.

And as soon as government has created laws making a non-violation of rights a "crime", you have either a)A totalitarian government or b)mob rule(sometimes called democracy).

I think I will stick with our representative republic and tolerate(or ignore) people's private acts I disagree with.

[OWK]

well said.

[DCBurgess58]

My point about the presidency, the judiciary, states, counties, cities, universities and schools is that THEY are NOT bound to eliminate religion from government by way of the first ammendment... period!

Once more will print the first ammendment...

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.

The operative phrase here is CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!!! Got it?? It is a restriction on Congress making laws. If Congress makes no law, there is no violation of the first ammendment. You cannot have violations of peoples first ammendment rights without congress passing a law.

As far as the 14th ammendment goes I will agree that it protects the first ammendment rights at a state level. You are now free to show me which state created an official state church (Is there a church of California?), outlawed a church or restricted the rituals of a church. If you can not show me where a state has violated the first ammendment by passing laws or where congress has passed laws establishing or restricting churches or their rituals, than all these arguements about separation of church and state amount to Judicial legislation.

It's time we took back our heritage and recognized that this is a tolerant Christian nation with NO restriction on government expressions Christianity.