There is no separation of church and state

Yes, and no. It has to do not just with the government establishing religion, but with the government respecting an establishment of religion. Even if the government bends over backwards so as not to establish religion, it is still in violation if it respects a relious establishment. </font>[/QUOTE]Which means that it shows no preferrential treatment... as per God is no respector of persons.

That doesn't mean that all religions always get equal access or influence. It simply means that gov't must have a level playing field and objective rules that apply equally to all. One of those rules can legitimately be that access corresponds to representation.

No one has a right not to be offended... and no one is done any kind of harm by a prayer at a football game. I doubt the founders would agree with you that religious free speech should be more restricted than say environmentalism, naturalism, or various other philosophies and ideals that are welcomed into the public debate.

The clause does not mean that gov't must be anti-religious or that the public square/market of ideas must be purged of religious points of view. It means directly that gov't can not purposefully promote one sect over another or create laws intended to favor one over the other with regard to acceptance by the people.

 

Necessarily. Yes. If she were chosen to lead and her views were presented in good taste and it would not interfere with good order... she should be allowed to express them.

What right is violated in hearing points of view that you disagree with? Free speech was specifically designed so that people could express unpopular or even rebellious views... with the express hope of winning converts.

 

BTW, her right to speak doesn't include a right to have that view honored or respected. Those in the audience have an equal right to protest in a way that does not disrupt the proceedings... like maybe stand and turn their back to the speaker.

 

BTW, the best resolution of this is to return the authority over things like this to the states, localities, and private persons.

 

On the other hand, it is obvious that 80% or 90% are sufficiently satisfied with the USofA exactly like it is with either an R or D elected else other parties would get more than 10% of the vote total.

 

I doubt that is true. Most people compromise when they vote for an R or a D. I do. I think at this point in time Republicans present less of a threat (however slight) to our genuine God given rights than do Dems... and much less than the far left of the Dem party.

These supposed social "pro-choice" liberals favor confiscation of property via eminant domain, regulation, and taxation, elimination of individual gun rights, restrictions on religious liberty and expression (if Christian), elimination of free speech (if conservative or considered offensive by protected classes), etc, etc. In fact, you could list off most if not all of our constitutional rights and cite examples where liberals have fundamentally eroded them.

 

Johnv,

That's not quite true. The phrase "separation of church and state" is the short-hand nickname for the Establishment Clause that is in Amendment I.

That's not quite true. It is A short-hand nickname for the EC, based on an interpretation. One that is wrong, IMO.

Jefferson was responding to responding to, among other things, the the idea that he call for a national day of fasting, which he refused to do out of respect for Amendment I's establishment clause.

I don't see that in the Danbury letter, below, though Jefferson certainly addressed that in his famous reply.

BB,

What the phrase “respecting an establishment of religion” means is a matter of intense debate

Agreed.

Jefferson did other things before and after the Declaration. Among them was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which was passed with the help of James Madison, among others. It is a clear expression of separation of church and state.

Interesting that, as an advocate of such church-state separation on the state level, Jefferson had no problem issuing such a proclamation ("Proclamation Appointing a Day of Publick and Solemn Thanksgiving and Prayer")on November 11, 1779.

And when the present Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted and ratified, there were a majority of supporters who believed, like Jefferson, that church and state should be separate.

Like who? The easy answer is Madison, but the usually cited example of his opposition to Congressional and military chaplains, after his Presidency, was not voiced when it was proposed in the First Congress. The usual rejoinder to that is that the First Amendment was obviously not yet a part of the Constitution but I find it hard to believe that someone cited as such a forceful advocate of "church-state separation" would have had no recorded objection to it at the time. Also, there is nothing in Madison's remarks or proposals in debate on the First Amendment that would lend itself to such an interpretation.

I guess you don't know this, but Baptists have historically led the fight for separation of church and state.

The historical Baptist fight for strict separation goes back to 19th century anti-Catholicism, even as they kept the KJV in predominantly Protestant public schools. I don't find in John Leland's opposition to church establishment anything that would support stripping the 10 commandments from a schoolhouse wall.


larry,

Jefferson actually attended a religious service the same day he wrote that letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Actually, IIRC, that service was in the Capitol building.


BB,

It’s easy to find writings from certain Constitutional framers and influential politicians that disagree with separation of church and state, but they were on the side that did not prevail. (It’s too easy to forget that there were winning and losing sides in the Constitutional convention and we have to read widely and carefully to get the whole picture.)

What writings of those who lost the First Amendment debate (was there opposition to it?) disagree with the accommodationist interpretation of the First Amendment? I'm not talking about the Constitutional Convention or the Constitution ratification conventions in which it was not debated. I do strongly agree with you, though, as to the Constitution itself, one must also read the anti-Federalists.

Freedom of religion requires the possibility of freedom from religion.

Agreed, again.


Johnv,

The Constitution forbids any sort of religious test for public office. Therefore, this statute is unconstitutional.

Wrong.

It applied to the national government, not the states. Joseph Story argued in Commentaries on the Constitution that this clause "had a higher object; to cut off for every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government ." Even in opposition to the clause, in the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Dr. Jarvis argued that it "would admit deists, atheists, &c., into the general government;"


BTW, none of the arguments I've given above are from David Barton, whom I reject as an historian, scholar, or advocate, thanks partially to the late Buffman, from IIDB.

[ January 31, 2006, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

Amendment I is self evident. It is clearly and carefully worded. Using the phrase "separation of church and state" to refer to Amendment I's establishment clause is accurate, imo. The phrase has been used by courts numerous times since the phrase as used by Jefferson, and first used in a SCOTUS ruling in 1878 (Reynolds v. United States).

It is no more inappropriate than the phrases "Elastic Clause" or "Separation of Powers", which, like "Separation of Church and State" are nicknames for clauses, phrases, and concepts in the Constitution. It would be idiotic for anyone to claim "there is no elastic clause in the constitution".

BTW, the phrase "wall of separation" was originally coined by Roger Williams.

Amendment XIV extends constitutionally guaranteed rights to all citizens of the United States, and prevents States from enacting legislation that would encumber those rights. Hence, state and local governments may not require religious tests for public offices or trusts.

 

Johnv,

Using the phrase "separation of church and state" to refer to Amendment I's establishment clause is accurate, imo.

And I stated that it is inaccurate, IMO. I respectfully disagree.

The phrase has been used by courts numerous times since the phrase as used by Jefferson, and first used in a SCOTUS ruling in 1878 (Reynolds v. United States).

No doubt. But it was not a consistent string between 1878 and 1947. I may be wrong, but I don't think it was used during the time between those decisions. Its use of that phrase certainly doesn't make it a correct interpretation of the Constitution, nor more than does "separate but equal". It certainly has the weight of law, and I respect judicial review but we both fortunately have the right to disagree with the SCOTUS.

It is no more inappropriate than the phrases "Elastic Clause" or "Separation of Powers", which, like "Separation of Church and State" are nicknames for clauses, phrases, and concepts in the Constitution. It would be idiotic for anyone to claim "there is no elastic clause in the constitution".

True, but what makes that an incorrect analogy is that there is no debate as to what that phrases and concepts mean. So that phrases like "separation of powers" are unquestioned descriptions of those concepts rather than an interpretation as to what any particular text means.


BTW, the phrase "wall of separation" was originally coined by Roger Williams.

Yes, but it is incorrectly used to support the argument for CSS as Williams used it to describe the need to protect the "garden" of the church from the "wilderness" of the state or society.


Amendment XIV extends constitutionally guaranteed rights to all citizens of the United States, and prevents States from enacting legislation that would encumber those rights. Hence, state and local governments may not require religious tests for public offices or trusts.

I concede that if the incorporation doctrine is correct (and it is certainly current constitutional law under SCOTUS, for sure) the religious test clause may in fact apply to the states. Given the accommodationist interpretation of the Establishment Clause mentioned earlier (that it also protected state establishments from federal interference) the incorporation doctrine doesn't make sense applied there, however.

Regards,

 

Do you know which school board this was or the case number?

Norfolk, NE. One (anonymous)student, aided by the ACLU, walked over the desires of a community of 20,000. It is part of the reason why we left Norfolk. If it happens here, I'll leave here, too. I won't expose my children to such nonsense, and I can't afford private school or home schooling for them, not without giving up life-saving medical care I frequently require.

The entire town was stunned.

BTW, the best resolution of this is to return the authority over things like this to the states, localities, and private persons.

It is the solution, and the one already expressed in our Constitution. Judges simply don't agree with us, unfortunately.

 

What exactly do you mean?

Most of the time I hear people talking about this, it is usually to complain about "activist judges." What kind of judge would you like to see appointed?

[Link]

If you are referring to judges like Justice Breyer, then I agree with you. If you are referring to judges like Justices Thomas and Scalia, then I strongly disagree.

Regards,
BiR