Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Foxfyre]

Please name any country, other than the USA, that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people. Any other country that attributes those rights as coming from God and not from the government.

Please name any country that is not predominantly Christian that does not restrict human rights.

Take your time to do your research. But I'll tell you right now, you're going to have a devil of time coming up with one, much less two or three.

And as for the views of the Founders and the Republic they gave us, here are just a few. There are lots and lots and lots more:

Benjamin Franklin

"Here is my Creed. I believe in on God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see." March 9, 1790 in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University

"Heavenly Father, May all revere Thee, And become They dutiful children and faithful subjects. May thy Laws be obeyed on earth as perfectly as they are in Heaven. Provide for us this day as Thou hast hitherto daily done. Forgive us our trespasses, and enable us likewise to forgive those that offended us. Keep us out of temptation and deliver us from Evil." Franklin's own version of the Lord's Prayer

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” – Constitutional Convention of 1787, original manuscript of this speech

John Adams

"The Christian religion is above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity. Let the Blackguard Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to Man." July 26, 1796, in his diary.

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion..." November 4, 1816 in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation." December 27, 1816 in a letter to Judge F.A. Van der Kemp.

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. (taken from a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813) Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men… The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart

The anti-Christian forces within our nation--those who yet clamor for a king to be their protector and provider--resist the Christian influence that is such an integral component of our history and culture. They do not understand the concept of unalienable rights and do not embrace the concept of self governance. But as much as they wish to dismiss/ignore the history and the truth, it is there just the same.

You are making specious arguments and relying on out of context and in some cases fictitious quotes for support. Please use the links to your cut and pastes. My guess is you are relying on David Bartonisms and Wallbuilders references. It has become a pretty common tactic these days

Some examples of questionable quotes and the blatant use of the phony statements by founders.
Consumer Alert: Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship

Some proof of outright fictions pretending to be founders quotes relating to the "US being a Christian Nation"
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation

Lets face it you have a position which depends largely on misrepresentation of fact.


Please name any country, other than the USA, that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people. All democracies.

Any other country that attributes those rights as coming from God and not from the government.

That is an overgenerality and it is not support that it means Christianity was a guiding principle or that our religious freedoms are derived from it.

To say that the nation was founded by Christians on Christian principles in no way suggests that the government is a theocracy or that any theocracy at the Federal level is tolerable.

Except it isn't said like that at all. It is meant entirely to suggest theocracy. There is nothing tolerable about lying about our history in order to forward such an agenda.

To say that Christians are why the nation is as great as it is does not dismiss contributions made by non-Christians or suggest that all must be Christian.

Also a falsehood, since the purpose of such a statement is to blur the distinction between modern Fundamentalist Christian dogma and earlier forms of religious belief. It is meant precisely to take credit for things where it is inappropriate. To exalt Christian Fundamentalist ideas to a position of beyond its non-existent contribution to our foundation.

There is nothing harmless about such assertions. They carry with them an agenda which deeply offends the notion of religious freedom in this country.

Every quotation I posted can be traced back to and verified by the original documents. Your source is one like many anti-Christian sites that disputes the authenticity of founding documents while providing no credible authority for their own anti-Christian opinions.

And while you no doubt harbor delusions of special insights and clairvoyance into the thoughts and intent of others, I will gently remind you that you don't know sh*t about what the unstated intent and motive of other is. But like other statists and king worshippers, it is necessary to debunk the concept of unalienable rights and self governance and the source of these as a principle of government. Otherwise you are left in the uncomfortable position of having to agree with them and that blows your ideology all to hell.

Okay I got a bit more ad hominem here than I like. But I detest circuluar arguments and become bored with 'that sucks' or 'that's bullshit' or 'you don't know what you're talking about' arguments that are nothing more than desperate attempts to rewrite history and discount an uncomfortable truth.

 

[CryingKoala]

Just as those who clamor for a king are unable to grasp the concept of unalienable rights, so would many be unable to discern the difference between Christian principles and the Christian religion. They probably can't even come up with how Christians and the Christian Religion are two different things.

To say that the nation was founded by Christians on Christian principles in no way suggests that the government is a theocracy or that any theocracy at the Federal level is tolerable. To say that Christians are why the nation is as great as it is does not dismiss contributions made by non-Christians or suggest that all must be Christian or that every Christian principle is unique to Christianity.

There is a vast difference between the First Amendment concept in principle and practice and saying that Christianity is the glue that holds it all together and yet both are realities.

So not founded in any sense on christianity could still mean founded on christian principles..............

Okie dokie.

Can I have a link to a government document that says it was founded on christian principles?

I will refer you to the vast library of documents the Founding Fathers left with us to illustrate their meaning and intent in the Constitution. I posted a tiny sample of those in this thread earlier today.

You mean a collection of phony or out of context quotes from sources you cut and pasted from but avoided making actual reference to.

 

[Foxfyre]

So not founded in any sense on christianity could still mean founded on christian principles..............

Okie dokie.

Can I have a link to a government document that says it was founded on christian principles?

I will refer you to the vast library of documents the Founding Fathers left with us to illustrate their meaning and intent in the Constitution. I posted a tiny sample of those in this thread earlier today.

You mean a collection of phony or out of context quotes from sources you cut and pasted from but avoided making actual reference to.

Nope. I'm pretty well versed in the Founding documents though I don't consider myself an expert. Spent quite a bit of time with them in college and since. I wonder if you have ever visited them?

 

[CryingKoala]

Please name any country, other than the USA, that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people. Any other country that attributes those rights as coming from God and not from the government.

Please name any country that is not predominantly Christian that does not restrict human rights.

Take your time to do your research. But I'll tell you right now, you're going to have a devil of time coming up with one, much less two or three.

And as for the views of the Founders and the Republic they gave us, here are just a few. There are lots and lots and lots more:








The anti-Christian forces within our nation--those who yet clamor for a king to be their protector and provider--resist the Christian influence that is such an integral component of our history and culture. They do not understand the concept of unalienable rights and do not embrace the concept of self governance. But as much as they wish to dismiss/ignore the history and the truth, it is there just the same.

You are making specious arguments and relying on out of context and in some cases fictitious quotes for support. Please use the links to your cut and pastes. My guess is you are relying on David Bartonisms and Wallbuilders references. It has become a pretty common tactic these days

Some examples of questionable quotes and the blatant use of the phony statements by founders.
Consumer Alert: Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship

Some proof of outright fictions pretending to be founders quotes relating to the "US being a Christian Nation"
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation

Lets face it you have a position which depends largely on misrepresentation of fact.


Please name any country, other than the USA, that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people. All democracies.

Any other country that attributes those rights as coming from God and not from the government.

That is an overgenerality and it is not support that it means Christianity was a guiding principle or that our religious freedoms are derived from it.

To say that the nation was founded by Christians on Christian principles in no way suggests that the government is a theocracy or that any theocracy at the Federal level is tolerable.

Except it isn't said like that at all. It is meant entirely to suggest theocracy. There is nothing tolerable about lying about our history in order to forward such an agenda.

To say that Christians are why the nation is as great as it is does not dismiss contributions made by non-Christians or suggest that all must be Christian.

Also a falsehood, since the purpose of such a statement is to blur the distinction between modern Fundamentalist Christian dogma and earlier forms of religious belief. It is meant precisely to take credit for things where it is inappropriate. To exalt Christian Fundamentalist ideas to a position of beyond its non-existent contribution to our foundation.

There is nothing harmless about such assertions. They carry with them an agenda which deeply offends the notion of religious freedom in this country.

Every quotation I posted can be traced back to and verified by the original documents. Your source is one like many anti-Christian sites that disputes the authenticity of founding documents while providing no credible authority for their own anti-Christian opinions.

And while you no doubt harbor delusions of special insights and clairvoyance into the thoughts and intent of others, I will gently remind you that you don't know sh*t about what the unstated intent and motive of other is. But like other statists and king worshippers, it is necessary to debunk the concept of unalienable rights and self governance and the source of these as a principle of government. Otherwise you are left in the uncomfortable position of having to agree with them and that blows your ideology all to hell.

Okay I got a bit more ad hominem here than I like. But I detest circuluar arguments and become bored with 'that sucks' or 'that's bullshit' or 'you don't know what you're talking about' arguments that are nothing more than desperate attempts to rewrite history and discount an uncomfortable truth.

The only ad hominem here is your response. You are the one flinging labels as to my alleged position. Calling me an atheist, statist or king worshipper. Calling my citations anti-Christian (which you probably didn't bother to read).

I posted links which illustrated the dishonest nature of many of these "Founders quotes" used to attack Separation of Church and State and the purpose behind doing so. You are on notice that you can't put these things out and have them accepted at face value. Either you have to give the links to such cut and pastes or we have to assume they are from the same dubious sources.

You refused to give the source of your citations. Unlike yourself, I am honest about who I am really referencing to. You are acting like a dishonest kid who got caught lying and is now trying to change the subject.

 

[Intense]

Almost all of our founding fathers were Christians..and many of them were clergymen.

The rumor that they weren't is just a myth.

Like whom? I am curious as to who you are going to cite for this.

This has been Posted Many Times on this Site.





# of
Founding
Fathers

% of
Founding
Fathers



Episcopalian/Anglican

88

54.7%



Presbyterian

30

18.6%



Congregationalist

27

16.8%



Quaker

7

4.3%



Dutch Reformed/German Reformed

6

3.7%



Lutheran

5

3.1%



Catholic

3

1.9%



Huguenot

3

1.9%



Unitarian

3

1.9%



Methodist

2

1.2%



Calvinist

1

0.6%



TOTAL

204




NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.

In the table above, some people have been counted more than once because they changed religious affiliation from one denomination to another. Thus, the individual amounts added together total more than 100%. This method is used because it results in accurate numbers for each individual religious affiliation. For example, a total of 7 Quakers are shown in the table above. There were indeed 7 Quakers who were in this group. (However, not all of these were life-long Quakers.) For the most part, very few Founding Fathers switched denomination during their lifetime (less than 8%), so double-counting has occurred only rarely in this table. Quakers, in fact, are more likely to have switched denominations than members of any other religious denomination. Along with taking up arms and supporting military action against the British, a large proportion of Quaker Founding Father officially renounced or were expelled from the ardently pacifistic denomination they had been raised in and joined another denomination (usually Episcopalianism).

Also, note that the proportions shown (percentage of each religious affiliation out of the total group of Founding Fathers) is the proportion out of Founders whose religious affiliation is known. The religious affiliation of a significant number of signers of the Articles of Confederation is not known, but if that information was available, it is expected that such information would not change the overall proportions signifcantly.


Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

 

[Texanmike]

I have no doubt that we are both well read individuals who can cite case law precedent until we are blue in the face. That is one of the reasons I choose to engage you in discussion and single you out. I also believe that we have differing view on the subject matter and while we have both likely arrived at our decisions through exhaustive reading but neither of us has read everything. I know that the tone I use may sound decided (and likely is in many cases) but I am looking for the reason that you feel that you do. Is it based on the constituiton or is it based on something that predates the constitution? A lot of the questions I would ask someone else in a condescending tone I'm actually presenting to you with genuine curiosity.

Because personal liberties are a national issue. It doesn't work to defer it to the states. We had a Civil War over that sort of thing. Simply put, States are not trusted to be the final arbitor of what constitutes personal liberties and equal protection under the law. They had their chance for the first century of our nation and already messed it up for the rest of us.

This is kind of a splinter argument and I'll just address it separately, I'm going back to read the history of our argument with regards to separation of church and state so I more clearly understand what you're saying. But I think that this is honestly the core of our disagreement right here. Please don't mistake my tone for being rude or disrespectful, I'm just being frank.

Personal liberties are not a national issue. If personal liberties are a national issue, they should be a world issue. We shouldn't stop at the argument of states, we should be forcing our version of freedom on every country in every corner of the world. (I don't agree with most 'conservative' views on foreign policy by the way). The civil war is an entirely different debate, and one of the most difficult to tackle because of the specialization and the ability of people to pick and choose facts and examples. I would argue that while it was over personal liberties, you cannot say that the states failed to manage them. In fact, it was the federal government that was beginning to attempt to manage them when the war broke out. There was a social change and rather than let it happen in its natural course the federal government stepped in and took the debate to a national level. We have seen the results.

The Civil War was as much about economics as anything if you get down to it. Personal liberties made good press and incited emotions but at the end of the day neither side cared about it. Oddly enough, slavery was on its way out one way or another, even in the deep south. It might have taken longer to occur officially but you likely wouldn't have seen the social and economic chains that were put on minorities had it been allowed to take its natural course.

As for personal liberties being a national issue, if that's the case then what isn't a national issue. I've said before that if your position is that "issue A" is a national issue then they must all be national issues. If they are national issues then why have states? You pick the top 5 issues of national importance to you and I pick 5 and you get that list from 100 people and you will probably have at least 500-1000 issues that are "national" in nature.

Furthermore, the FF left us a way to deal with national issues, the amendment process. If separation of church and state (or anything for that matter) is a national issue then write an amendment and ratify it. If it is a 50/50 issue or even a 60/40 issue then it isn't a national issue. If you can't get 75% of the states to agree that it is a national issue then its not truly a national issue. The 14th Amendment, as originally intended, clearly was not meant to apply the bill of rights to the states, it was meant to apply all laws within a state to the States. That much is clear for the first 40 years after the Amendment was ratified. If the 14th amendment was meant to incorporate the Bill of rights or apply all rights "nationally" then it wouldn't have taken almost 50 years for the courts to find that way. Incorporation doctrine itself is an example of virtual legislation from the bench of the supreme court and its time that we put an end that that on both sides. Instead, write the amendment and get it ratified.

I'm sure this will be an interesting debate.

Ironically, the first hint of an argument of the incorporation doctrine involved a state Constitution. I just find that kind of funny. Instead of the courts being able to evolve the words of the Amendments (and the Constitution) we should write new amendments, that would solve all of this because you and I clearly advocate different legal issues. I think that stare decisis is a terrible thing and a way for the judicial branch to mold society in whatever way they want. If I write a contract (or an Amendment) then it should mean the same thing today as it will mean in 50 years, any time (and this goes for some doctrines that I agree with in principle) you change the meaning of a contract to "fit the changing of the times" you risk credibility.

Mike

You seem to be working under the assumption the 14th Amendment doesn't exist here. Equal Protection under the Law in its plain textual reading and interpretation means exactly the opposite of what you are saying. States cannot pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights protections under the aegis of Federal/State division of duties. Any issue of personal liberties becomes a federal issue under this. Liberties must be upheld in a uniform and equal manner for all citizens irregardless of where they are living within the nation.

No I'm not working under the assumption of the 14th Amendment. The problem with your statement is not that the 14th amendment doesn't apply, it is what I bolded. If you are saying that any issue of personal liberties becomes a federal issue then the states do not need to exist. The intent of the 14th amendment was to grant slaves the same protection and prevent a state from being able to keep them as slaves by legislation. It did not alter what subject matter was left to the states and it did not cede legislative authority to the federal government beyond one requirement. It must be universal. The federal government was not granted some magical wand that gave it legislative authority within the state. The states all agreed, by ratification, that the laws within the states shall grant all of the citizens within the state equal protection of the law.

As for privileges or immunities of the citizens of the states, can you define them? Congress is prohibited from writing laws by the First Amendment.

I would really like the answer to the following two questions:

Do you believe that the states, upon ratifying the 14th amendment meant to deal with religion or freedom of speech?

Does the original intent matter? Is it ok to find a way to incorporate a doctrine into the constitution even if it wasn't the original intent?

As for your take on the judicial branch, that is another argument already lost for more than a century when the power of judicial review was accepted under Marbury v. Madison. Actually you lost that argument in the colonization period of the US. Our legal system is a direct copy of the British Common Law system. In fact in the early days of SCOTUS, British legal indexes were used primarily for the purposes of citing to case law. Stare decisis is the legacy of the British system. The British set their system up so judges can interpret the law without requiring legislative guidance. If you want the legislatures to be the sole guide for legal interpretation, we would have had to be colonized by the French.

If it comes from British law (and yes, I will concede that we did utilize a lot of their system as a continuation in our system) and was intended to be a carbon copy then why did we break from the British? While there are similarities to the systems we have vastly different views from the British. Fundamental to the British system of law was that there were certain rights that the people held. Fundamental to the American system of law is that the people hold all rights not expressly granted to the federal government.

When I speak out against case law precedent I suppose I should qualify that I don't mind that it exists at the local or even the state level. My problem with it is when it is applied to the Constitution and I don't believe that the intention was for the Supreme Court to be able to expand the power of the federal government. I do not see, when I read article III, the authority for the federal government to expand its powers using the judiciary. They should actually compare every legal challange directly to the Constitution. The findings of a previous court should not determine the findings of a new lawsuit. For local and state laws I can see the need, and even with laws that is determined to be Constitutional, I can see it. Section 2 starts out "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States and Treaties made....".

I'm not arguing against Judicial Review, that is a fundamental responsibilty of the SCOTUS (and to courts which they appoint). "to all Cases arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...." if it is not under the Constitution (and I would point you to the end of article I section 8 and article VI define what laws are Consitutional. I do not see, however, where the Judicial branch is able to compare the Constitutionality of a law using a previous ruling on a different law. Using case law precedent with regards to law does not define the power of the governing body. Using case law precedent with regards to the Constitutionality of a law does expand the power of the federal government beyond the intent of the original document.

Unlike the legislature, the Judicial branch is charged with the duty of having to interpret the Constitution in light of a real life conflict which requires resolution. Stare decisis is more useful in this situation because a law has to be able to be implemented in real world situations beyond any kind of theoretical situation which Congress can only work with. Congress doesn't have to consider potential conflicts which can arise when it passes a law, they don't see how the law actually interacts within the society. The Courts have no choice. They have to interpret it in order to deal with the parties brought before them.

Yes it took 50 years after the 14th Amendment was passed before it was applied towards personal liberties. It has more to do with the political attitudes of SCOTUS itself during the 19th Century than anything else. It does not change the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause nor act in any way to invalidate its given interpretation.

As for the separation of church and state. The argument against it relies mostly on cherrypicking details, omitting contrary facts and failing to frame examples used in prior centuries in the context of the national culture back then.

It predates the Constitution as a concept and was the guiding principle behind the Establishment Clause. It was not created by Jefferson or SCOTUS, but by William Penn and Roger Williams more than a century before the Revolution. The Establishment Clause does not mean that all religious references are banned from government expression. It means such things have to be inclusive in nature and not sectarian. What was considered inclusive back in the 18th Century won't fly today under any circumstances (or as some would say, even back then
Founding Father John Adams? Advice to Rick Perry: Don?t Meddle in Religion | Politics | Religion Dispatches)

The problem is that I'm not looking to cherry pick. I'm looking at the constitutionality of things. It isn't sufficient to say "The British did this" or "This judge said this" it boils down to, "Is this provision granted to the federal government in the Constitution". I have yet to see someone make a compelling argument, based on the original intent of the Constitution, that the states intended to suddenly include the federal government in state law. They just wanted to grant equal protection to the citizens within a state. It doesn't say what the liberties are because they are outlined in the bill of rights (among other places). If we were meant to ban religion from the public square (or from plublic property) the country over then we should have done it via amendment. Going back and reinterpreting the Constitution without an Amendment is relegislating by the judiciary.

Mike

 

[koshergrl]

I can never decide if people are purposefully dishonest, or just so stupid they don't realize they're lying?

If they don't realize it, it means they don't know what truth means..and I think that is often the case. We have a whole population of people who don't understand the meaning of "truth". These are the people who lie about our Constitution, and our founding fathers, and about the meaning of freedom of religion.

 

[CryingKoala]

I will refer you to the vast library of documents the Founding Fathers left with us to illustrate their meaning and intent in the Constitution. I posted a tiny sample of those in this thread earlier today.

You mean a collection of phony or out of context quotes from sources you cut and pasted from but avoided making actual reference to.

Nope. I'm pretty well versed in the Founding documents though I don't consider myself an expert. Spent quite a bit of time with them in college and since. I wonder if you have ever visited them?

Nope, you are just a cheap liar who doesn't understand that I am already familiar with the sources you are trying to fob off as alleged knowledge. You are cutting and pasting from David Barton & Co or some derivative of his stuff. Its obvious. You are just annoyed that I already know your playbook.

No links to where you got the quotes? Oh well. Its not like you really want to stand behind what you cited and have people check it out for themselves.

Not the sort of thing one expects from honest people with a scholarly opinion.

 

[CryingKoala]

Almost all of our founding fathers were Christians..and many of them were clergymen.

The rumor that they weren't is just a myth.

Like whom? I am curious as to who you are going to cite for this.

This has been Posted Many Times on this Site.
...
Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

None of that shows they were clergy, which was koshegrl's assertion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well gentlemen, since you seem to be abandoning any attempt at refuting anything I've said with anything credible, and have now, as anti-Christians and/or radical statists almost always do, turned your attention to personal insults, I shall declare myself the rightful victor in the debate and move on. Once you're out of ammo, it's all over, and I really am not into food fights and flaming contests.

Should you regain your ability to actually debate, I might return later. Until then ya'll do have a really nice day.

 

[peach174]

This is a list of who started this nation, all of them believed in God.
Some did not believe in Christianity.
Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

When you hear the words American exceptional-ism it means that we were the first nation to recognize that God gave us rights and not the Governments. And they were Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Our Founders intended to have God in our Government.
They did not say Christ should be in it, but GOD should be.
This is why we have non denominational prayers at the beginning of each government branch. The House, the Senate and the Supreme Court.
We have those opening prayers led by Priests, Preachers, Rabbis and Imam's and the prayers are generally all inclusive (non denominational) meaning GOD and no mention of Jesus has ever been used.

Atheists have been trying to get rid of GOD in our government since the early 1960's and that is totally unconstitutional because of our 1st amendment.

 

[CryingKoala]

I have no doubt that we are both well read individuals who can cite case law precedent until we are blue in the face. That is one of the reasons I choose to engage you in discussion and single you out. I also believe that we have differing view on the subject matter and while we have both likely arrived at our decisions through exhaustive reading but neither of us has read everything. I know that the tone I use may sound decided (and likely is in many cases) but I am looking for the reason that you feel that you do. Is it based on the constituiton or is it based on something that predates the constitution? A lot of the questions I would ask someone else in a condescending tone I'm actually presenting to you with genuine curiosity.

Separation of Church and State predates the Constitution by about a century. Separation of Church and State was a religious concept of the Anabaptist sects, most notably the Quakers. Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island expounded on the idea and contributed the first real American works on that subject. William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania was equally adamant in the same belief and wrote extensively on why it is necessary for all religious freedoms.

The intent of the 14th amendment was to grant slaves the same protection and prevent a state from being able to keep them as slaves by legislation. It did not alter what subject matter was left to the states and it did not cede legislative authority to the federal government beyond one requirement. It must be universal. The federal government was not granted some magical wand that gave it legislative authority within the state. The states all agreed, by ratification, that the laws within the states shall grant all of the citizens within the state equal protection of the law.

Actually I beg to differ on this. Equal Protection could not effectively exist unless the states were bound by a duty not to make laws which violate the personal liberties of the Bill of Rights. Ratification by the states doesn't change the nature of its content. It was the intention of the Amendment to take such matters out of the hands of the states when it came to personal liberties.

Do you believe that the states, upon ratifying the 14th amendment meant to deal with religion or freedom of speech?

It was meant to deal with all freedoms under the Bill of Rights. Whether it was used in that respect is a different story.


If it comes from British law (and yes, I will concede that we did utilize a lot of their system as a continuation in our system) and was intended to be a carbon copy then why did we break from the British? While there are similarities to the systems we have vastly different views from the British. Fundamental to the British system of law was that there were certain rights that the people held. Fundamental to the American system of law is that the people hold all rights not expressly granted to the federal government.

Irrelevant to the discussion. That did not have to do with the actual legal system itself as it did the laws they worked under. In both systems judge made law was the primary form of interpretation of legislation.

Using case law precedent with regards to law does not define the power of the governing body. Using case law precedent with regards to the Constitutionality of a law does expand the power of the federal government beyond the intent of the original document.

You are arguing against judicial review although you say you aren't. Ultimately it has to be the judiciary to be the ones to interpret the constitutionality of a law because they are the ones who have to deal directly with situations where such issues arise. Original intent is also something which is something largely assumed but seldom actually supported. Original intent is not the sole criteria for evaluating constitutional interpretation. It never was. Out of practicality judicial review came to be and frankly it reinforces the effectiveness of the Constitution rather than adds new powers or detracts from powers already existing.

If we were meant to ban religion from the public square (or from plublic property) the country over then we should have done it via amendment. Going back and reinterpreting the Constitution without an Amendment is relegislating by the judiciary.


Except as I have stated too many times to tell, it is not the meaning. Never was. It is an oft-repeated strawman assertion. What can or should be banned are purely sectarian displays. Where there is some note of exclusion of faiths in a community in such displays.

Going back and reinterpreting the Constitution without an Amendment is relegislating by the judiciary.

Welcome to the Common Law legal system. What you are proposing is how Continental Europe sets up its laws and courts. What is called a Civil Code system. Such deference to the legislature was never part of the American national political character. Judge made law, relegislating by the judiciary is the basis of our legal system from before our foundation.

 

[Intense]

Here is something from the Colony of New York.

CHARTER OF LIBERTIES AND PRIVILEGES - 1683

[This is New York’s first Constitution of democratic government passed by the first New York legislature, October 30, 1683. It was the first of its kind in the colonies. This charter was suspended in 1685 but was essentially re-enacted by the charter of 1691 which remained, in principle, the Constitution for the Colony until the American Revolution in 1776. See The Constitutional History of New York by Charles Z. Lincoln, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing company Rochester NY, 1906.) - RAF]

27. [Religious toleration.]

THAT Noe person or persons which professe ffaith in God by Jesus Christ Shall at any time be any wayes molested punished disquieted or called in Question for any Difference in opinion or Matter of Religious Concernment, who doe not actually disturb the Civill peace of the province, But that all and Every such person or persons may from time to time and at all times f reely have and fully enjoy his or their judgments or Consciencyes in matters of Religion throughout all the province, they behaveing themselves peaceably and quietly and not useing this Liberty to Lycentiousnesse nor to the Civill Injury or outward disturbance of others provided Alwayes that this liberty or any thing contained therein to the Contrary shall never be Construed or improved to make void the Settlement of any publique Minister on Long Island Whether Such Settlement be by two thirds of the voices in any Towne thereon which shall alwayes include the Minor part Or by Subscripcons of perticuler Inhabitants in Said Townes provided they are the two thirds thereon Butt that all such agreements Covenants and Subscripcons that are there already made and had Or that hereafter shall bee in this Manner Consented to agreed and Subscribed shall at all time and times hereafter be firme and Stable And in Confirmacon hereof It is Enacted by the Governour Councell and Representatives; That all Such Stimes of money soe agreed and Consented to or Subscribed as aforesaid for maintenance of said Publick Ministers by the two thirds of any Towne on Long Island Shall alwayes include the Minor part who shall be regulated thereby And also Such Subscripcons and agreements as are before mericoned are and Shall be alwayes ratified performed and paid, And if any Towne on said Island in their publick Capacity of agreement with ‘any Such minister or any perticuler persons by their private Subscripcons as aforesaid Shall make default deny or withdraw from Such payment Soe Coverianted to ao-reed upon and Subscribed That in Such Case upon Complaint of any Collector appointed and Chosen by two thirds of Such Towne upon Long Island unto any justice of that County Upon his hearing the Sarne he is hereby authorized empowered and required to issue out his warrant unto the Constable or his Deputy or any other person appointed for the Collection of said Rates or agreement to Levy upon the goods and Chattles of the Said Delinquent or Defaulter all such Surnes of money Soe covenanted and agreed to be paid by distresse with Costs and Charges without any further Suite in Law Any Lawe Custome or usage to the Contrary in any wise Notwithstanding.

PROVIDED Alwayes the said surne or sumes be under forty shillings otherwise to be recovered as the Law directs.

AND WHEREAS All the Respective Christian Churches now in practice within the City of New Yorke and the other places of this province doe appeare to be priviledged Churches and have beene Soe Established and Confirmed by the former authority of this Government BEE it hereby Enacted by this Gcnerall Assembly and by the authority thereof That all the Said Respective Christian Churches be hereby Confirmed therein And that they and Every of them Shall from henceforth forever be held and reputed as priviledged Churches and Enjoy all their former freedomes; of their Religion in Divine Worshipp and Church Discipline And that all former Contracts made and agreed upon for the maintenances of the severall ministers of the Said Churches shall stand and continue in full force and virtue And that all Contracts for the future to be made Shall be of the same power And all persons that are unwilling to performe their part of the said Contract Shall be Constrained thereunto, by a warrant from any justice of the peace provided it be under forty Shillings Or otherwise as this Law directs provided allsoe that all Christian Churches that Shall hereafter come and settle with in this province shall have the Same priviledges.

[The first part of this paragraph was included in substance in § 38 of the Constitution of 1777, which has since been continued without change, except that a provision relating to the competency of witnesses was added in 1846.]
1st N.Y. Constitution

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

LOL you guys are still here.

The constitution never called for a separation of church and state.

If i'm wrong post the line, from the constitution, that does this.

 

[Moonglow]

This is a list of who started this nation, all of them believed in God.
Some did not believe in Christianity.
Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

When you hear the words American exceptional-ism it means that we were the first nation to recognize that God gave us rights and not the Governments. And they were Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Our Founders intended to have God in our Government.
They did not say Christ should be in it, but GOD should be.
This is why we have non denominational prayers at the beginning of each government branch. The House, the Senate and the Supreme Court.
We have those opening prayers led by Priests, Preachers, Rabbis and Imam's and the prayers are generally all inclusive (non denominational) meaning GOD and no mention of Jesus has ever been used.

Atheists have been trying to get rid of GOD in our government since the early 1960's and that is totally unconstitutional because of our 1st amendment.

It is not just atheists.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course it doesn't.

Anyone who claims it does is lying. Freedom of religion is PROTECTED by the Constitution. Not stifled.

 

[CryingKoala]

LOL you guys are still here.

The constitution never called for a separation of church and state.

If i'm wrong post the line, from the constitution, that does this.

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

 

[Intense]

1777 - The Constitution of New York : April 20

XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration, respectively. That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth further ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of New York, and of the convention of the State of New York, now in force, and not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be considered as making part of the laws of this State; subject, nevertheless, to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State may, from time to time, make concerning the same.

XXXVIII. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any presence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.

http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm

New York Prohibited Clergy from taking an active role in State Government by Law.

 

[Intense]

LOL you guys are still here.

The constitution never called for a separation of church and state.

If i'm wrong post the line, from the constitution, that does this.

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

You are the fly in the ointment, the ants at the picnic. Just saying.

 

[CryingKoala]

Here is something from the Colony of New York.

CHARTER OF LIBERTIES AND PRIVILEGES - 1683

[This is New York’s first Constitution of democratic government passed by the first New York legislature, October 30, 1683. It was the first of its kind in the colonies. This charter was suspended in 1685 but was essentially re-enacted by the charter of 1691 which remained, in principle, the Constitution for the Colony until the American Revolution in 1776. See The Constitutional History of New York by Charles Z. Lincoln, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing company Rochester NY, 1906.) - RAF]

27. [Religious toleration.]

THAT Noe person or persons which professe ffaith in God by Jesus Christ Shall at any time be any wayes molested punished disquieted or called in Question for any Difference in opinion or Matter of Religious Concernment...1st N.Y. Constitution

Which for the 17th/18th Century would be a model of ecumenism and inclusiveness. The actual goal of the Establishment Clause. About 50 to 100 years later it would not have been. Hence my prior argument about the ahistorical nature of using such quotations without grounding it in the culture from when they were written.


More likely than not much of it was excised as the state became more religiously diverse.
If you want a real example of where our concept of the Establishment Clause came from, use the Rhode Island or Pennsylvania Charter or State Constitution.