Separation of church and state

[Gob]

And why he hasn't roundhouse kicked it in the face yet.

[Lord Jim]

That's a valid point...

You'd think that if Chuck really hated socialism, it wouldn't be around any more....

The proof that Chuck Norris doesn't hate socialism is that it's still alive.....

[Andrew D]

Jefferson was, as the Supreme Court unanimously put it, "an acknowledged leader of the advocates of" the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.[1] He authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. That statute "established a clear separation of church and state,"[2] and it is widely regarded as the model on which the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are based.[3]

The notion that "separation of church and state" is a modern liberal engraftement onto constitutional law is the product of ignorance of constitutional history. In fact, Jefferson's famous statement that the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, together, erect "a wall of separation of church and State" was adopted by the Supreme Court long before modern liberalism even existed. In 1878, the Supreme Court unanimously said of Jefferson's statement:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.[4]

1. Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 164.

2. Constitutional Rights Foundation, 26 Bill of Rights in Action 1 (Fall 2010).

3. See, among many other sources:

The Virginia Historical Society: "the forerunner of the first amendment protections for religious freedom."

The Constitutional Rights Foundation: "a model for the First Amendment."

Basic Readings in U.S. Democracy: "Jefferson drafted the ... measure, but it was Madison who skillfully secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights."

Encyclopedia Virginia: "One of the most eloquent statements of religious freedom ever written, the statute influenced both the drafting of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the United States Supreme Court's understanding of religious freedom."

Bill of Rights Institute: "This Virginia law declared that government-mandated religion was a violation of natural rights and therefore, 'no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever….' Furthermore, 'll men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.' These two affirmations are the roots of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause."

5. Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 164.

[Sue U]

When I have a little more time I'll look it up Big RR, but I don't believe Jefferson had any direct role in crafting The Bill Of Rights...(Though my recollection is that he exchanged letters with Madison on the subject, who was the one to introduce those 10 amendments in the first US Congress)

Jefferson, although not the author, was clearly qualified to speak about the nature and intent of the First Amendment; he and Madison had worked closely together on the same issue for more than a decade in the Virginia legislature, with Madison being the sponsor of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779; enacted 1786). Madison's virtually identical views are set out in his classic Memorial & Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785). The complete separation of church and state is only a "modern interpretation" if by "modern" you mean "between 1779 and 1801" and by "interpretation" you mean "what the framers actually said about it themselves."

[MajGenl.Meade]

What's the problem? Church and state are and should be separate entities.

The state should not compel persons to believe any particular religious belief. I think there's something about that in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion and not preventing the free exercise thereof etc. It's a restriction on what Congress can do - it can't mess with religion.

IIRC there's no actually anything in there that says religion can't mess with government but if (say) those awful Anglicans managed to get voted in as a majority, under the Constitution they'd immediately have to stop being religious. Oh whoops - too late.

Separation of church and state does not mean that government can't enjoy a nice prayer before din-dins. Nor does it mean that Christians (as an example) cannot lobby, vote and persuade others to vote on issues which affect all people.

It's fair enough that if a church endorses candidate or party from the pulpit it should lose tax exemption or charitable status or whatever it is. It's also fair enough that a pastor, priest, rabbi or mullah is entitled to explain to their congregations how their particular religious belief applies to law and order. Not to mention CSI so I won't.

If Bishop X wants to pray that the Republicans shut up and go home, that's fine. Likewise for the Dems. It's a prayer we all probably wish came at the beginning. I know that the upcoming beanfeast would make me vomit if forced to watch it - thank goodness for the separation.

Meade

[Lord Jim]

It's a prayer we all probably wish came at the beginning. I know that the upcoming beanfeast would make me vomit if forced to watch it

Especially living in Ohio, which is ground zero for the fest, and where there will be, (and already has been) the biggest influx of beans in the history of beanfests....

The state is probably going to let out one huge gigantic fart after election day....Indiana will probably keel over from the blast....

[oldr_n_wsr]

Being a spiritual person rather than religious (I was raised Catholic) I don't give a rats ass what religion a person is. I have found that a persons "heart" is their core value and if they happen to be religious, that's their choice. Let the goverment leave me and others alone to worship or not worship as they see fit.

But I have no problem with others bringing up God. If that is how they believe and gain a moral "center", so be it. Since when is having a God you pray to such a derogatory thing?

[Long Run]

What's the problem? Church and state are and should be separate entities.

* * *
Separation of church and state does not mean that government can't enjoy a nice prayer before din-dins. Nor does it mean that Christians (as an example) cannot lobby, vote and persuade others to vote on issues which affect all people.

Meade

Thanks for making the relevant point. What Jefferson meant by a wall of separation between church and state did not have the meaning some would ascribe to the term today.

[Crackpot]

by the same token "because God said so" is not a vaild argument for policy nor should it be.

[MajGenl.Meade]

...because you say so?

[Crackpot]

Of course. I'm always right.

If you can't make a coherent argument for something absent divine intervention it has no place in a secular society. (I would question it's theological correctness as well)

[MajGenl.Meade]

If you can't make a coherent argument for something absent divine intervention it has no place in a secular society. (I would question [its] theological correctness as well)

That's an interesting take, CP. Are you saying it may be theologically unsound to make a coherent argument for the existence of God because such an argument would include 'divine intervention'? And such an argument has no place in a secular society?

It does have the virtue of simplicity

What happens if I make a coherent argument that does include divine input? Are you arbitrarily declaring any and all such arguments to be de facto incoherent arguments - and who decided that?

Meade

PS I take "coherent" to mean a rational and valid (as to form) argument. I do not take "coherent" to equal "correct" (factually speaking)

[Andrew D]

What Jefferson meant by a wall of separation between church and state did not have the meaning some would ascribe to the term today.

Actually, two of the major proponents of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment interpreted them far more strictly than we do today. James Madison considered congressional chaplains paid at public expense to be unconstitutional, and he and Thomas Jefferson both considered presidential proclamations of days of prayer, fasting, and the like to be constitutionally improper.

James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, addressed on at least two occasions the question whether it is constitutional for the houses of Congress to have chaplains paid for at public expense. Both times, he concluded that it is not.

In his letter to Edward Livingston of 10 July 1822, Madison wrote:

I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it took place in Congs., when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Natl. Treasury.

Prior to that, in one of his "Detached Memoranda," c. 1817, Madison first observed that

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States ....

He then continued:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. ... To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public ...[?]

Madison also (some waffling on the subject notwithstanding) rejected the idea that Presidents should even issue proclamations merely recommending prayer, etc. In the same Detached Memorandum, he wrote:

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root ....

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are:

1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms.

2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate.

3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. Th[at] idea ... having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea.

Thomas Jefferson was in complete agreement with Madison on that point. Rev. Samuel Miller had asked Jefferson to recommend a day of fasting and prayer. In his responding letter of 23 January 1808, Jefferson wrote:

SIR,--I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, or religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.

But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

If we followed the views of those leading exponents of religious freedom, we would have no congressional chaplains and no presidential religious proclamations. And we would be better off.

[Gob]

VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia: The Republican presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, has thrust God to the centre of the White House race, in a culture war strike that prompted Barack Obama's team to brand him extreme and divisive.

Mr Romney appeared with the televangelist Pat Robertson on Saturday in the swing state of Virginia and seized upon the row at last week's Democratic convention sparked when delegates removed language about God from their platform.

After reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, Mr Romney told the crowd: ''I will not take God out of … our platform. I will not take God out of my heart. We are a nation that's bestowed by God.''

The former Massachusetts governor also appeared to imply that Democrats wanted to remove the phrase ''In God We Trust'' from US currency.


The Obama campaign swiftly responded to Mr Romney's rhetoric, describing it as a ''Hail Mary'' pass - a desperate long throw in the dying moments of an American football game when defeat is nigh.

[Andrew D]

When it comes to the Pledge of Allegiance, the real issue is whether we should restore it to its original form, which did not include the phrase "under God," or continue its bastardization.

[Long Run]

[quote="Andrew D
Actually, two of the major proponents of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment interpreted them far more strictly than we do today. James Madison considered congressional chaplains paid at public expense to be unconstitutional, and he and Thomas Jefferson both considered presidential proclamations of days of prayer, fasting, and the like to be constitutionally improper.

* * *
If we followed the views of those leading exponents of religious freedom, we would have no congressional chaplains and no presidential religious proclamations. And we would be better off.[/quote]

Thanks for the good history lesson. I didn't realize that leading pols of that time felt like that. Not sure we'd be better off if we had never had (or ceased at some point) to have chaplains and the like, but the information is good stuff.

[Long Run]

When it comes to the Pledge of Allegiance, the real issue is whether we should restore it to its original form, which did not include the phrase "under God," or continue its bastardization.

Or, we might expect this season to be populated by specific, general even, thoughts on how to get the economy moving, how to bring the budget into balance over time, fix the drivers of the deficit (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.), and how to best deal with Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East, SCOTUS philosophy and other things that matter. Just kidding.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Or, we might expect this season to be populated by specific, general even, thoughts on how to get the economy moving, how to bring the budget into balance over time, fix the drivers of the deficit (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.), and how to best deal with Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East, SCOTUS philosophy and other things that matter. Just kidding.

Now now, we can't have any of that. Useless discussion about superficial items is what sells.

[Lord Jim]

Or, we might expect this season to be populated by specific, general even, thoughts on how to get the economy moving, how to bring the budget into balance over time, fix the drivers of the deficit (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.), and how to best deal with Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East, SCOTUS philosophy and other things that matter.

Peyote and posting do not a good combination make, Long Run....

[dgs49]

Below is a statement released by the State Department from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

"Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed. They included Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and our Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals."

"This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we’ve lost."

Who, exactly, is this "we"? What exactly is a "prayer," and to whom is it directed - and for what purpose?

Was she speaking for herself, the State Department, or the Federal Government?

If I didn't know better (after reading the wisdom imparted above) I would think that this was a religious statement, grossly violative of the "wall of separation between Church and State."

These fucking religious zealots are all around us.