Separation of Church and State: Establishment Clause and Muddled Thinking

Joe Mariani is a freelance writer ^ | Sunday, December 05, 2004 | Joe Mariani

[StonyBurk]

Jeffersons' State act for religious freedom is interesting,
However The eviddence suggests the Virginia plan was not
the sole basis for our First Amendment.Several of the States
insisted upon a Bill of Rights.And I find it interesting I
have seen no evidence that the Mohammedan,or Hindoo,or Infidel ever took up Jefferson on plan for the University
of Viriginia. though Franklin,and Jefferson were widely accepted as Deist It was Franklin who proposed "We are assured ,Sir,in the Secred writings that:'Except the Lord
build the house they labor in vain that build it." I firmly
believe this,and I aslo believe that withouthis concurring aid we shall succeeed in this political building no better
than the Builders of Babel."Suggesting a personal belief not
only in the BiblicalTruths but there was a role for religion
in government.An understanding of the establishment clause
reflected in US S.Ct. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Piretti 515 US (1995)

[Ready4Freddy]

REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

It concerned polygamy in the (then) Territory of Utah.

[atlaw]

And the lesson is -- Never let the facts get in the way of your agenda.

[epow]

Congress shall make no law regarding "religion".. period..

AFAIK Congress isn't making any laws regarding religion and hasn't for many decades, if ever. How does a display of the 10 Commandments on state property equate to Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? It is judges who have made and are making laws regarding religion, and their laws invariably support the religion of secular humanism.

It takes a very convoluted line of reasoning to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as "government at any level shall not allow the display or mention of a Christian book, quotation, or symbol in or on any property owned or controlled by government". Notice that interpretation only applies to the Christian religion, children are taught about Islam and eastern mystical religions in many schools today without judicial interference.

I'm an evangelical Christian, but I don't want government teaching religion or favoring any one religion in law, that isn't the proper role of government. But neither do I want government forbidding individuals to exercise their religion or make their religious beliefs known in public schools or on public property. Kids have been banned from school buses for carrying a bible in their backpack, and sent home from school because of a Christian symbol on their clothing. That kind of anti-Christian intolerance is stretching the 1st Amendment far, far beyond anything the author's ever imagined.

[Parthalan]

I'm confused. What part of the story is wrong? The whole editorial story? You quoted the case with Justice Black, but in response to what?

[Parthalan]

The author is incorrect in his interpretation, as many are..
Too many take the word "establishment" to be interpreted as a verb.. i.e., to "create" a church..

Judge Black interpreted the word establishment as a NOUN.. an organization, group, or entity..

Congress shall make no law regarding "religion".. period..


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'm not a English professor specializing in grammer but, doesn't the use of the words an establishment make it a noun? Had it said the establishment it would be a verb, right? If establishment doesn't mean to create a religion why make the next part of the statement of prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

I agree with you in part on this. I believe it should be used as both a noun and a verb.

Congress should not make a law respecting an establishment of religion (either the creation of a religion or the how the religion is operated), or prohibiting the free exercize thereof...

Getting back to the point. This "Establishment Clause" is not found "attached" to Amendment One of the Constitution of the United States. Or am I just looking in the wrong place? How then, can current Judges use this case as reasoning for the unconstitutionality of events like allowing the Boy Scouts of America to hold their event on Military property? Or any of the now thousands of cases that the ACLU is using to try to replace the foundation of this country.

I realize that this question is preaching to the choir but I'd still like to know.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

True, but the 14th and 15th amendments have an extremely shady history. The 13th was passed after the Civil War right handily - even in the south. However, in order to get the 14th to even through congress, a sitting congresscritter was removed (definately against the Constitution).

Furthermore, even though the 14th didn't pass, and should have been DOA, Congress took the unusual (and illegal) step of kicking out the southern states from the Union (heck, this was what the south had wanted in the first place), then disenfranchising all the white males in the south who couldn't prove that they hadn't fought on the side of the rebels.

So the 14th and 15th were passed by rump legislatures installed unconstituionally by the U.S. Congress.

So, the question I have to ask is: If the 13th was legally passed by legal southern legislatures, does that make the legislatures, which passed the 14th and 15th, illegal? Or more to the point. If the installed rump legislatures are legal, then the passage of the 13th is illegal.

So, my thesis is that either ending slavery was done illegally or the federalization of the Bill of Rights was.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Here's a link to an article on FR a while ago, with a lot quotes by founding fathers. In their own words, more revealing that the extrapolations people twist up to turn them all into religion loathers.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426198/posts
Misquoting Our Founding Fathers

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinstlist.

Note: I recently read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. He was not a church goer, and did consider himself more or less a Deist. One of the few. And he was a great admirer of religion, did believe in God, and encouraged religious belief in others by word and deed.

[Drammach]

Please forgive the lateness in my reply, I can only blame the intense heat in my locale and the hesitancy to operate the computer for fear of overheating..

I "pondered" at length over the whole noun/verb thing concerning "an" establishment vs. "the" establishment..
I decided that in both cases, the terminoligy was interchangeable.. both noun and verb..

As to the which clause thing, I have no answer..
SCOTUS is rampant with idiocies explaining their decisions...

One of my pet peeves is the Freedom of Speech argument:
"No one has the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre"..
Ridiculous..
If there is, indeed, a fire in a theatre, crowded or otherwise, it is one's duty, obligation to yell "Fire" and notify the occupants...
According to SCOTUS, after saving those people from a fiery death, the alleged miscreant should be prosecuted for violating the law..

Likewise, religion..
I too, realize I am preaching to the choir, but..
SCOTUS should simply STFU, and advise all plaintiffs that congress, and therefore, the federal government has NO "authority" to create law concerning religion/religions/religious belief, and they will therefore decline to take any such case..

This would defacto, return such jurisdiction to the States, and the people, where it belongs..