Article 1 of the bill of rights vs seperation of church and state

Oct 16 2001 | Self

[DCBurgess58]

I have been pondering the questions surrounding governmental expressions of christianity versus the left wing ideal of a "separation of church and state". First of all I would like to quote the exact verbage from the United States Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I consider myself to be an intelligent man, capable of deducing the obvious intent of the founding fathers with respect to the first amendment. They have CLEARLY stated that Congress has no authority to outlaw any particular religions. No more, no less. They were not rejecting Christianity or eliminating it from government. In fact they were Christian men creating a Christian nation in which religious tolerance was the norm. Then they CLEARLY stated that Congress could not make any laws regulating how individuals worshipped their religions. The ideas they were expressing here were the result of Catholic, Protestant, Church of England conflicts which were so traumatic in Europe. The Founding Father's intent was to keep Congress from being used as a tool of religious intolerance... that's all... period!! Furthermore, the restriction ONLY APPLIES TO LAWS OF CONGRESS. It does not apply to the presidency, the judiciary, states, counties, cities, universities, schools or any thing else. So where the heck does the judiciary come off eliminating or regulating ANY governmental expression of christianity, judaism or whatever? The first ammendment of the Bill of Rights ONLY regulates laws made by congress and CLEARLY states that. If you don't like your city council spending tax dollars on nativity scenes at Christmas, vote them out of office. Finally, I would like to ask two questions, as I do not know the answers. Perhaps some of you Freepers do know the answers.

1) How long has the phrase "In god we trust" been in governmental usage?

2) How long has the term "separation of church and state" been in use?

[toenail]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/549062/posts

[lavaroise]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The language is quite clear. It means that we cannot blaspheme by saying a law is made in the name of God, nor can a law in the name of an ideology be used to remove the trust in God from individual to federal governance.

The separation of church and state, as a mean to prevent blasphemer, is actualy a very much God respecting mandate. THe constitution in its first article clearly tells us to respect God implicitly.

Secondly, in God we trust is not claimed as to be the word of God, hence it is not a law, it is a general concept of respect of the balance of powers and the acknowledgement that an absent and non-intervening God is to be trusted instead of any earthly power in particular at the expense of another power. Hence the executive should not be praised over the legislative nor over the judicial, nor over free entreprize, nor over state, local and individual governance. The powers shall be balanced so that they compete to serve the people instead of the people competing for the powers (something liberals are incapable of understanding since they are fame and power hungry).

Hence if there is no Earthly power that we can trust, God Who is no Earthly power but Heavenly power can be trusted. In God we trust is in fact a self evidence that "proves", or rather makes God and the inalienable rights balancing powers self evident.

If we do not trust in God, then we will trust and be slaved to an Earthly limited power. Whether it is the army, the Judicial, the flesh, the sex preferences and what not, all these are Earthly powers that no one should ever be enslaved to lest tyranny of one kind or the other happen.

Fighting to keep the In God we trust mandate alive is the last hope to keep this nation free.

[Marduk]

" So where the heck does the judiciary come off eliminating or regulating ANY governmental expression of christianity, judaism or whatever? "

Of course, you are right. This ammendment clearly only prevents Congress from outlawing a religion or specifically establishing a state religion. It does not mean separation of church and state. The term "separation of church and state" is not in the Consitution. And of course, it only applies to Congress, not the states.

It should be obvious then that school prayer is not unconstituional because it does not involve an act of Conbgress establiushing a state religion or prohibiting a religion.

But the Elite that controls the USA has an agenda that involves destroying Christianity. So this Elite purposely perverts the real meaning of the Consitution to make it look like the Consitution supports their anti-Christian crusade.

[OWK]

Is it moral, to compel a man to pay for the advancement of ideas he does not share or condone?

[sonjay]

It should be obvious then that school prayer is not unconstituional because it does not involve an act of Conbgress establiushing a state religion or prohibiting a religion.

I understand the sentiments behind wanting to permit prayer in school (prayers said aloud, I'm referring to here, because anyone can pray silently anywhere; that's not prohibited anywhere yet, AFAIK.)

And yet ... and yet .... What kind of prayer? Which G*d? I think everyone who is part of any of the mainstream Judeo-Christian denominations would not want their children to be led in a prayer to Allah, or Buddha, or the Supreme Mother of the Vegetarian Universe (or whoever the heck it is those Vegans pray to). Nor would parents who believe in those gods want their children led in a prayer to the Judeo-Christian G*d.

Further, any prayer that is generic enough to not favor one religion over another is probably pretty worthless as far as prayer goes.

That is why I believe prayer does not belong in the government schools.

[DCBurgess58]

ABSOLUTELY, Christianity is a fine moral force in the world. Our countrie's tolerant attitude towards those of other beliefs is a shining beacon to both the religiously oppressed of the world and agnostics and athiests alike. Like I said before, the first amendment is CLEAR and it only prevents Congress from passing laws promoting or limiting religion. No Congressional law passed... no foul! If you don't like religious expression from government, vote out those who offend you. That's your right! The courts screwed up big time when they stuck their nose into separation of church and state.

[Hillary? Hell no!]

The term "separation of church and state" comes from Thomas Jefferson. Here's a link.

According to the US treasury the motto "In God we Trust" first appeared on some coins in the 1860's. It was finally used on all coins in 1938. It wasn't used on folding money until 1957.

[Non-Sequitur]

'In God We Trust' first appeared on currency in 1864 when it was inscribed on the 2 cent coin. In March 1865 Congress mandated that it be included on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." With one or two exception it had been on all coins since then.

The 'separation of church and state' quote comes from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Convention, "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

[Marduk]

"And yet ... and yet .... What kind of prayer? Which G*d? I think everyone who is part of any of the mainstream Judeo-Christian denominations would not want their children to be led in a prayer to Allah, or Buddha, or the Supreme Mother of the Vegetarian Universe (or whoever the heck it is those Vegans pray to). Nor would parents who believe in those gods want their children led in a prayer to the Judeo-Christian G*d. "

That's a valid concern. But what I am saying is that it is not unconstitutional. That's the only thing that I am saying. Maybe school prayer is not such a good idea for the reasons you gave but it is not unconstitutional.

I would also counter-argue that religion is an important part of human development. If the schools are forced to be atheist that is also offensive to religious people. The schools are being forced to be functionally atheist and that can be just as offensive as the things that you mentioned.

[Florida native]

"In God WE Trust" was added to our money in the 50's, and the idea of Separation of Church and State began when the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson asking that he declare a national day of Thanksgiving. I think he wrote a reply using the term "Separation of Church and State."

[DCBurgess58]

I'm not really bothered about prayer in school so much, I think it should be a local issue. If you live in a predominantly Hindu area and the teachers are Hindi then I would expect that if they decided prayers in Indian were something they wanted, it should be legal. Just don't try to force my kid to participate. I now have the option of allowing them to express their religious beliefs without my kid participating, or encouraging my kid to privately say Christian prayers at the same time or move my kid to another school if I am that unhappy with it. If I ran a school, I personally wouldn't have organized prayers but I would allow time for prayers if it was a part of the children's religeous beliefs.

[WolfsView]

I don't think many would agree with forced prayer. We just want to be allowed to pray. Like the pledge, those who want to join in can, the rest can have enough decorum to remain silent for 1 minute.

[rdb3]

What kind of prayer? Which G*d? I think everyone who is part of any of the mainstream Judeo-Christian denominations would not want their children to be led in a prayer to Allah, or Buddha, or the Supreme Mother of the Vegetarian Universe (or whoever the heck it is those Vegans pray to).

Not quite. I am a Christian, yet when I see people of other faiths expressing their faith outwardly (through dress, mannerisms, sayings, etc.), I am in no way offended. When they attempt to proselytize me, I'm in no way offended (that's their faith in action, and what kind of believer would you be if you didn't attempt to convice others? Isn't that what we do with political philosophy?). When I hear the names of other gods, I am in no way offended.

I teach my son the exact same thing. He knows who his Savior is, and no amount of saying, "In the name of Allah the Mericiful" or any other deity is going to change that.

If a school has a spoken prayer including such terms as "God, we pray for Your guidance and Your will to be done today. Amen." then there is no way one can deduce which god has been invoked (although I will unashamedly admit that there is only ONE true God). Such prayers do not endorse any religion whatsoever, and to say that such a prayer does makes one a religiophobe. The mere mention of the name of God makes the leftists and some libertarians alike heads spin like that little girl on The Exorcist.

Yet we have those who have a hissy-fit over any mention of God! Those who truly live the Word know that they cannot through any type of force compel men to become Christians. It's just not possible (I'll leave out the serious spiritual proofs of this). Nor do I believe that a true Christian would want to compel a man to believe as he does. For example, show me one example out of the Word where Christ Himself physically forced anyone to follow Him. Since we are not greater than He, then, who are we to compel when Our Lord didn't?

We try to persuade and persuade only.

Then you have people here at FR who, for whatever reason, flock to threads that are Christian in theme. I find more non-believers there posting and making fun of believers! Now, if I happened to find a Jewish-theme thread posted here, I may click on it and read. I may ask questions. But I would in no way disrespect anyone. This is not being PC, this is being courteous and respectful. So, this begs the question of my fellow Freepers: Why post on a thread based on a Christian theme in which you do not believe in the first place? Kind of a waste of time, isn't it?

What's wrong with atheists either teaching their children to ignore prayers at stadiums, graduations, etc? What about atheists ignoring the same themselves? Libertarians talk about force a lot. And for the most part, I agree with them on this issue. However, there is blatant hyprocrisy involved when I am forced to sit silently by and pray to myself, or, cannot tell someone of the Lord Jesus! My freedom of speech has been tossed out of the window, yet I don't hear cries of "foul" from the libertarian brothers. What up with that? An atheist libertarian can try all day to convince me that there is no God, yet he or she will only be met by my one saying: I disagree. Besides, isn't atheism a faith unto itself? I mean, to believe that there is no God is to believe in something, right? Belief is the essence of faith (Heb. 11:1).

Lastly, I would be one who will go to bat for faiths other than Christianity out of defense of my own faith. When I stand by and allow one faith to be squashed, I know mine is next in line.

[Always Right]

Is it moral, to compel a man to pay for the advancement of ideas he does not share or condone?

The only religion the government seems to advance is atheism, but you only get upset when people freely express their religion on government property, as if government property makes it some kind of religious-free zone.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"1) How long has the phrase "In god we trust" been in governmental usage?

2) How long has the term "separation of church and state" been in use?"

1.) You probably hear 1954 in response to this but that is not exactly correct. THe phrase has been in use by different entities and different ways since the beginning but in the late 19th, early 20th century I believe something happened where the phrase found disfavor. In 1954 it was reinstituted.

2.) Again this phrase, in generals terms, has been in use since the beginning. But most attritbute it to Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbary Baptists around 1812(?). Search the net and you will find it all over. THa national archives has a copy of the original on the web.

If you are interested I suggest America's Christian History: The Untold Story by Gary DeMar for more indepth data.

[rdb3]

Is it moral, to compel a man to pay for the advancement of ideas he does not share or condone?

Ahh, Brother OWK. One in whom I have deep respect. I'd ask you personally for your opinion on myriad topics, but on this one, that question is a hanging curveball.

I pay property taxes. Out of those taxes, public schools are funded. They teach evolution as fact in these schools. I don't believe whatsoever in evolution. Yet I pay for this. Creationism is not allowed. I believe in the Creator, but He is not allowed in school.

Question: Is this moral?

Besides, how can a theory be taught as fact anyway (not a question to front you out, just in general).

[rdb3]

I do want to hear your opinion on my response. Always in respect, bruh.

[dbbeebs]

Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."

The Establishment Clause has generally come to mean that government cannot authorize a church, cannot pass laws that aid or favor one religion over another, cannot pass laws that favor religious belief over non belief, cannot force a person to profess a belief. In short, government must be neutral toward religion and cannot be entangled with any religion.

Religion in public schools

Minersville v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) - Supreme Court rules that a public school may require students to salute the flag and pledge allegiance even if it violates their religious scruples.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) - Court overturns Gobitis but is broader in its scope. No one can be forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual conscience.

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) - Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) - Court finds that release time from public school classes for religious instruction does not violate the establishment clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) - Court finds school prayer unconstitutional.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) - Court says the state cannot ban the teaching of evolution.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) - Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) - Court finds state law enforcing a moment of silence in schools had a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) - Court finds state law requiring equal treatment for creationism has a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.

Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) - The court rules that the Equal Access Act does not violate the First Amendment. Public schools that receive federal funds and maintain a "limited open forum" on school grounds after school hours cannot deny "equal access" to student groups based upon "religious, political, philosophical, or other content."

Lee v. Weisman, 112 SCt. 2649 (1992) - Court finds prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the establishment clause and is therefore unconstitutional.

Lamb's Chapel et al. v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993) - Court says that school districts cannot deny churches access to school premises after-hours, if the district allowed the use of its building to other groups.

Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, (1994) - Court states that the New York State Legislature cannot create a separate school district for a religious community.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, (2000) - Court rules that student-led prayers at public school football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School, (2001) - Court rules that Milford Central School cannot keep Good News Club from using its facilities because the school had created a limited public forum and prohibiting the religious club was viewpoint discrimination.

[dbbeebs]

how can a theory be taught as fact anyway

Because most of the evidence points to it as being correct?