Posted on 08/28/2006 9:10:27 AM PDT by fgoodwin
Edited on 08/28/2006 9:14:19 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
USA Today articles are to be posted as links only
Inviting someone to speak at a school is not establishing a religion. It is inviting someone to speak at the school.
Let's take the worst case: Let's say a principle invited Billy Graham to the school, held an assembly, and Billy had a "Come to Jesus" invitation.
Is that establishing a religion? Nope.
It is exercising poor judgment on the part of the principal, and he should probably have to pay a price for his poor judgment from the school board, and if they don't, then the school board will have to pay from the voters.
And if the voters don't care because they all have no problem with it, has a religion been established?
Nope. Methodists can still get up and go to methodist church, and baptists baptist churches, and hindus airports, and JWs door-to-door.
When all of us are required to go to the same place, then a religion has been established.
The rule of common sense and of the dictionary.
"Established religion" has a definition.
There is no reason why the public square, or the public school, has to be cleansed of religious voices or sanitized of religious references. In the cases cited by Hentoff, the student could not possibly be violating the "establishment" clause, since only a public official or organ of government can "establish" a religion ("Congress shall make no law"); and a student is not a public official.
So Merry Christmas, everybody!
(Hee hee. I just said that because I can.)
"The phrase is actually "an establishment of religion." Why would you use a modern dictionary to interpret a constitution written in the late 1780's?"
Actually, at the time the US constitution was written, several states HAD established religions-- established by the state, that is (established in the state constitution, partially funded by the state, etc.) The constitution merely prohibits the Federal government from doing the same thing. And, not only was the bible routinely taught in schools, but each day typically started with a prayer.
I think an awareness of contemporaneous historical facts on the ground is far more useful to interpret the meaning of an historical document than any dictionary.
I agree with you... I think. I'd have to look into the definition, and how it would be applied.
Just off the top of my head: both presidents Washington and Lincoln called for national days of fasting and repentance. No enforcement of course: just a proclamation. Should that be permitted?
Here, from the American Bar Association website is what I found:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/churchstate/colonial.html
From the above link:
"When the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1791, the First Amendment guaranteed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This provision ensured that no one religion would be favored over another and protected religious groups from unfair treatment by the federal government. Still it did not protect against unfair treatment by state governments. Indeed, the amendment was thought by many to protect against congressional interference with state governments' involvement with religion-that is, it was thought to prohibit the U.S. Congress from “disestablishing” churches established by state governments. "
Another site indicated that "several" states had an established religion, up until 1833 when the last of them passed "dis-establishment" laws, but it did not list the states.
Regardless, it is a clear historical fact that at the time of the founding of the U.S., religion was very much a part of public life, including political life (some states granted voting rights only to members of a particular church), and life in the schools. It was wrapped up in many different kinds of laws.
Whether one thinks that is the best way or not (I don't happen to think it is), to claim that the kind of mindless nit-picking we have on the subject today is "founder's intent" is absurd. I consider it a symptom of fear-- the desperate fear of some people that there might actually BE a God. ;)
Interestingly enough, it is only the God of the bible, the Christian/Jewish God that people seem to be afraid might exist. Nobody gives a rat's butt if Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims pray in school-- I'm a devout Christian, and I certainly don't anyway. The reason is that the God of the bible is plausible and the others are not. I don't believe that any contemporary educated American truly believes all the Hindu fables or the Buddhist stuff-- they just subscribe to it out of family tradition, a belief in the moral teachings, a comfort level with the philosophy or fashion (or some combination of the above.) As for the Muslims-- well, given what is going on in the world today, the odds of any well-adjusted American young person turning to Islam are close to zero.
But the God of the bible-- well, that's a different story. I have some atheist friends who were going on and on at dinner one night about some Hindu friends of theirs, and the wonderful Hindu festivals or celebrations or whatever, and how nice a religion Hinduism is. But, Christianity? Forget it-- they REALLY dislike that. Odd, huh? That's when I realized the difference-- that the one was plausible and the other just wasn't.
What is an established religion?
List?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.