Posted on 04/04/2013 12:32:35 PM PDT by SatinDoll
How so is this discussion overtly opposed to Natural Rights and the primary freedoms of men?
As a historian and as a Roman Catholic, no one on FR is more aware than myself how one person’s or one group’s concept of religious freedom is another person’s living nightmare of oppression. Ask any Jew about oppression by Christians and Muslims.
The history of religious oppression in Europe was very well known to the Founders of our nation. I believe that history was the primary impetus behind the opening to Amendment I of the U.S.Constitution: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION...
The fact that some feel this opens the opportunity for states to establish a state religion is deeply troubling. Such an establishment would be created, I am sure, for the greatest of moral reasons, but such reasons can and do degenerate into abusive practices.
Ready for another Inquisition, folks?
It's not a "feeling" Satindoll. As I mentioned to you upthread, establishment of a State Church was not prohibited to the States under the "establishment clause," it was prohibited to the national government. Many States had a State Church well into the 1800's, others disestablished their State Church not long after ratification.
I agree with you. I have a background in history and go into detail about my thoughts concerning this issue in post #81.
And why did they disestablish those churches?
You’d need to look at each state individually. In the instance of my home state of North Carolina, there was a wide swath of Christianity present back to the earliest colonial times, and some fairly old Jewish groups too. The established Anglican State Church was largely ignored, unlike neighboring Virginia which enforced their State Church. That’s why so many persecuted Christian groups had an historic presence in NC, that informal religious freedom, even if officially under a State Church. They abandoned it once they were free to do so. Others held on for a much longer period of time. Connecticut, I believe, had a State Church into the late 1830’s.
Thanks for the information.
Many states? Well into the 1800s?
Massachussetts was the last state which had an unenforced state religion, which was formally removed in 1833. Most states/colonies had rempved their stste religions before the end of the War of Independence was even over.
That you put your overstated and misleading arguments squarely in the Tory/Royalist camp speaks volumes.
Off by six years, wrong Yankee fiefdom. Oops. 1833 is still well into the nineteenth century, regardless.
Your overblown, pompous reaction to my truthful statements on the basis of two little gotchas that in no way undermine accuracy speaks volumes.
The Constitution did not prohibit the power of establishing a State Chuch to States. You inadvertantly acknowledge this via your own attempted refutation.
This speaks volumes as well.
I wasn’t being snarky at all. You were opining that states had state sanctioned religions and that, therefore, it was obviously Constitutional.
I was simply pointing out that most states didn’t have such laws and the few that did did not enforce the laws, so they were never litigated. Indeed, I would argue that they weren’t enforced because, besides being extraordinarily unpopular, the states may have known they would be struck down by the Ninth Ammendment. That is pure conjecture, but none less than yours.
Most states banned it in their state constitutions. Hamilton’s point about listing rights in a bill of rights was that governments could claim people had no other rights than those enumerated. Hence the 9th Ammendment.
States don’t have rights, they have powers. People have the right to worship as they choose with no interference from the states. I think that’s how the USSC should have resolved Everson, but Congress, the courts and STATE legislatures would be frightened by the proposal.
Tell you what, let’s not debate this online. Go ahead and take your “state religion” idea to the people and the courts. If you are Constitutionally correct, my side will move to ammend the Constitution. If your side is wrong (the Supreme Court has held so time and time again), propose your Ammendment and let’s see how far it gets.
Even if the courts reverse themselves, all your shenanigan will do is drive the populace away from any good ideas you may have.
You appear to be vehemently refusing to argue with a fiction of your own creation, bearing little to no resemblance or relation to anything I’ve posted here.
Where have I identified anything other than powers enumerated to States under the Constitution? Who is this that you’re hotly yet not snarkily attempting to refuse to debate, lol? Because it surely isn’t me or even a rough approximation.
So, go, refuse to debate whoever it is that you’re imagining, sans snark. I clearly play no role in it.
Call me Anti-clerical but I would find it anathema. And I find the pointless pursuit of this legislation to be counter-productive.
I’m shocked some European countries still have church taxes, most of these countries also have huge and growing numbers of non-religious people, I’m surprised they aren’t clamoring over it.
And I’m shocked that Labour never disestablished the Church of England while it was in power. In fact I’m surprised Cameron isn’t doing it right now.
That being said, just because state legislatures CAN still establish a "state church" for their state, should they? I would say absolutely not. They'd have to go with an organized church anyway -- if you just declared generic "Christianity" as your "official state religion", there's such a wide range of ways that Christianity is interpreted in various denominations, it would be effectively meaningless to try and legislate it as part of state government. You'd have to declare an official organized church denomination (given the demographics of North Carolina, the logical choice would be to declare the Southern Baptist Convention is the official sanctioned "State Church of North Carolina". As a Catholic, I would be highly offended by such an action giving the SBC preferential treatment in government, and the reverse would be true if say, the "Roman Catholic Church" was named the "official state religion" of Rhode Island and non-Catholics were treated like second class citizens there)
It's true we sort of unofficially have this arrangement in some states. As someone else noted, there's no "official state religion" in Utah, but unofficially, we know Mormons control the government there and it's really hard to get any high position of power in Utah without being a member of the LDS (I would also argue the laws, such as liquor laws, are directly affected by LDS teachings). That being said, the idea of the government "officially" giving its blessing to this arrangement is downright creepy to me.
Bottom line, we did away with state churches in the 1820s for a very good reason. The fact all those "progressive, secular, forward-thinking" European countries haven't do so shows what hypocrites they are. In one breathe, they bash us for being "too religious", in the other breathe, they defend the status quo allowing religion to have preferential treatment in their governments because it's become so ingrained in their culture over the centuries that they're afraid to rock the boat and upset the status quo (all those Bishops in the UK House of Lords given cushy government posts solely because of their religious status aren't about to give that up).
Even more offensive in the UK than the "official state religion", is that the government actually does what liberals falsely accused Bush of doing: enshrining discrimination in the Constitution. Catholics, for example, are specifically singled out and barred from the British throne due to a centuries old clause from the time of Henry VIII. The law doesn't even apply to other non "official state religion" citizens. A Lutheran, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist can ascend to the throne. A Catholic cannot.
I'll fight liberals tooth and nail as they try to purge government officials from exercising their religious faith. But at the same time, I sure as hell don't want big brother telling me what religion is the right one.
The majority of people in most of the states that now have "gay marriage" as the law of the land were vehemently against allowing that as well. (Do you think Iowans voted for it?) That's why liberals use activist judges and corrupt gerrymandered legislatures to force their views regardless of what "the majority" wants. We'd be really screwed if some Keith Ellison type wackjob judge declared that Sharia law is entitled to a "special relationship" with the state government.
“unequivocally”
I see, since what you cite is judicial interpretation and not the Constitution you are taking the position that the judicial opinion (as opposed to the Constitution) is something that is written in stone, something that a latter opinion cannot disagree with, alter, revise, or revoke. Because, if it can, then the opinion is NOT “unequivocal”.
There are those of a strict constructionist view who would argue that many of the things presently believed to be legitimate extensions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th amendment is more simply modern judicial interpretation and not Congressional intent in adopting the 14h amendment.
The “Bill of Rights” is NOT an independent, single amendment to the Constitution; it is ten separate and distinct amendments. Each one presents its own distinct mandate against the powers of the Federal government.
The “incorporation doctrine” is neither found, described or spelled out in any fashion in the 14th amendment. The Bill of Rights is not mentioned in the 14th amendment.
Jurisprudence for nearly 100 years after the adoption of the 14th amendment (by those closest in time to its adoption) did not know such a doctrine was hidden in the 14th amendment (because it wasn’t).
“The incorporation doctrine is a creation of a U.S. Supreme Court, not the Congress that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment.” [nor nearly 100 years of later Congresses or Supreme Court judges).
What can also be seen since judges enacted the “incorporation doctrine” into the 14th amendment by judicial fiat, that, as was feared, they have inconsistently applied it. (rule by men and not rule by law)
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/
Full disclosure: Am arguing against the ideas in the Bill of Rights? No. The legal question is does the words “Congress shall make no law” apply to Congress and Congress alone. Yes, it applies to Congress and Congress alone and no amendment can be said to extend the federal writ beyond what the Constitution and prior amendments to it have provided, unless that amendment explicitly and intentionally does so, which, as far as the “incorporation doctrine” the 14th amendment does not do. Some judges woke up one day and dreamed into existence, because doing so extended the powers of the federal government, period.
If we the people had wanted to write the incorporation doctrine into the 14th amendment, we could have done so. We never did. The Constiution has not been “interpreted” by such doctrines, it has been usurped.
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.