Posted on 09/05/2002 7:57:50 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State
Let me ask you this Ron. If the teacher leads the class in a recitation of the Declaration of Independence which declares that our rights are granted by the Creator, is he violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution?
Nope. The DOI says what it says. The teacher is teaching history. It would also not be a violation to discuss what is known about the religious beliefs of the writers of the DOI, and how it may have influenced what they wrote.
Now, if the teacher teaches whether or not those religious beliefs are right or wrong, then that would (IMNSHO) be a violation. Leading the students in any kind of religious exercise, or supervising the class while a student did so, would also be a violation.
A military base is only one example of a tax-supported institution that I don't consider "the public square" (besides which, to be a public square, I'd think that access to a location would not be limited to the military, but be open to the general public). The floor of the Congress is another; only elected officials can speak there. The inside of any Federal office building is yet another; you can't even go in there unless you are an employee, or are entering inside to conduct specific business related to that installation's function. There are numerous tax-supported institutions that, in my opinion, aren't properly described as "the public square", and it seems to me that the public schools are one such.
Now, it seems to me that public parks are "the public square", and the sidewalks in front of federal installations can be "the public square" if proper arrangements are made so as to not block traffic. These are places where one can reasonably expect to address the public with minimal interference. And if you instead choose to publicly address one's God, that's fine too. But I believe that your definition of the "public square" is over-broad.
I make a point of this because I've seen a few people defend government-led or -supervised group prayer in public schools on the basis of the schools being "the public square". It's a fine-sounding phrase, but upon reflection I thought to myself, "What do they mean?". I think of a guy on a soapbox, addressing passers by on whatever comes to mind, or a group holding a rally and making speeches on the issues of the day. So, when you used it, I wanted to see what you meant. I haven't seen a lot of logic applied to what people think the public square is, and what's reasonable to expect there.
I would also note that nowhere in the Constituion is teh Supreme Court called teh final arbirter of the Consitution. In fact, Congress has the explicit right to take issues out of the range of the USSC.
By Jerry Bowyer
A UPI Outside view commentary
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 8/24/2002 6:38 AM
View printer-friendly version
PITTSBURGH, Aug. 24 (UPI) -- On President George Washington's Aug. 18, 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation:
Prayer has been banished from school; manger scenes and menorahs have been banished from courtyards and recently the phrase "under God" has been temporarily excised by a lower court from the Pledge of Allegiance.
This has all been done on the basis of the most separationist interpretation of the most separationist sentence, which appeared in the most separationist document written by the most separationist member of the founding generation.
Since the middle of the 20th century the Supreme Court and assorted inferior courts have been building a scaffold of legal precedent regarding the relationship between God and the State. Almost all of this is based on a metaphor employed by Thomas Jefferson in his famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
This is unfortunate for two reasons: first, no set of legal doctrines as pervasive and revolutionary as these should be erected on such a narrow foundation; second, the way it has been used distorts the view of the founding generation towards Church/State relations.
What a shame that the courts have chosen to derive their interpretation of the Constitution almost entirely from a man who had no hand in its drafting --Jefferson was in France at the time -- and whose views on religion were so unusual for his time that he felt the need to conceal them in order to be politically viable.
Perhaps they should have consulted "the indispensable man," George Washington, and his correspondence with the "Hebrew congregation" of Newport, Rhode Island, which was exchanged 211 years ago this week.
Washington had been traveling in Rhode Island in August of 1790 and had the opportunity to meet with some of the members of the town's synagogue. Shortly thereafter the Warden of the congregation, Moses Seixas, sent a letter of appreciation for the President on their behalf. What strikes modern ears about the letter is the richness, vibrancy and boldness of religious expression:
"With pleasure we reflect on those days and -- those days of difficulty, & danger when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword, shielded your head in the day of battle: and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.
"Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People -- a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance--but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental Machine: This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual Confidence and Publick Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies Of Heaven and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.
"For all the Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal and benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Antient of Days, the great preserver of Men -- beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: and, when like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality."
A few things strike the eyes of the modern reader.
The Jews of Newport were proudly particularist; they didn't speak in general terms about a broad monotheism or about the place of "religion" or "spirituality" in American life.
Instead they cited the books of Joshua and Daniel specifying that the God that they were talking about was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Further, they did this, not inside the walls of the congregation, but in an official communication with the President of the United States and in his capacity as President, not his capacity as a private citizen.
Finally, rather than treating religious expressions in public life as threats to religious liberty, the Jews of Rhode Island in 1790 saw their liberty as derived from "the Antient of Days."
George Washington's reply below makes one wonder how American life would be different if her courts had turned to this letter -- written by a man without whose support the Constitution would have had no chance of being ratified -- rather than to Jefferson's letter as a source to understand the United States Constitution.
The substance of Washington's reply is as follows:
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
"It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."
Again, we find an explicitness of religious expression that would be rebuked by the editorial staff of many newspapers if it appeared on presidential letterhead today.
More importantly we find the idea of Liberty of Conscience which is a more elegant and clear formulation of the religious question then Jefferson's metaphorical wall.
This principle puts Washington in the mainstream of his generation.
On the right you had the advocates of toleration like Patrick Henry who believed that America should have been explicitly subordinated to Christianity in its Constitution. In this view non-Christians were to be "tolerated" although they were at variance from the American establishment.
On the left you had the separationists like Jefferson who believed that the institution of the Church would shortly decline from its position of cultural leadership and should be separated from government at all levels.
Of course, even Jefferson didn't go as far as his modern interpreters, as he still left room for discourse about God in the public sphere -- for instance in his own Declaration of Independence -- and required only that such expressions be non-sectarian.
Jefferson's metaphor brings confusion: do our days of Thanksgiving violations of the separation? Are all religious expressions, even those not associative with the institution of the church, violations of the separation between Church and State? What about institutions that involve areas of overlap between Church and State, for instance, church-run soup kitchens, drug and alcohol programs, and schools which receive public support?
Washington's framework, while still leaving some gray areas, is much simpler.
Every human being possesses an inherent right to liberty of conscience; government may not compel them to accept or reject any beliefs, religious or otherwise. And citizens shall be permitted to act on their beliefs "so long as they demean themselves as good citizens" and do not attempt to coerce the beliefs of others. Quick, somebody please fax a copy of The Letter to the Hebrew Congregation over to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
-- Jerry Bowyer is host of a radio program on WPTT radio in Pittsburgh.
-- "Outside View" commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.
Copyright © 2002 United Press International
Source: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020821-032236-7769r
To reverse America's collapse, which version of Christianity would you recommend?
Why would your particular recommended version be most effective, in reversing the collapse of America?
American Indians might argue the collapse of America started, when Christian Europeans brought new diseases.
Some might argue with your claim that America is collapsing. The country and its people are probably among the most humane, towards others, in world history.
What instructions can be found in the New Testament, concerning "the state?" Would that not be the supreme source, and not the American Constitution (a document of mere mortal, fallible men)?
You see the more we have CRAP like this shoved down our throat the more mobolized we become.
What crap are you referring to? If you think religious freedom is crap, I don't think you understand America, why it was founded, how it was founded, or why it has succeeded.
Gee..thanks for attempting to psychoanalyze me but I wouldnt quit your day job just yet. You couldnt be any farther from the truth if you are trying to direct your comments at me personally because I am perfectly content to live among anyone regardless of their religion so long as they dont try to force it upon me.
As for others who are constantly trying to push christianity out of view from public society, I dont know what their problem is but I do not contribute to their cause. For the most part, the US is considered a "Christian" nation and I have no problem with that at all. Even I can see that as our society has moved away from the foundation that was built on a "christian" background, our morals and our values have steadily declined. I have always believed that Liberalism is a disease of the worst kind. Though I do not follow any single form of religious faith, I do believe in an almighty creator that is greater than I and I do not object to any other mans belief if it makes him a better person so long as he doesnt try to force it on me.
It has certainly been refined, but I think it is the same intention. Our visions of the Fourth and Fifth and Tenth amendments have also been refined. That is what two hundred and ten years of case law and history will do.
And Congress still has chaplains. And we have a Thanksgiving Day every year. And we subsidize the printing of Bibles by tax-exempt churches.
It seems to me that the Reynolds case was legitimate and teh 1954 case on religion in schools was not.
Are you saying that the Reynolds Court was correct to use the Danbury Baptist letter as a guide? But that the 1954 court was wrong to use Reynolds as a precedent? And what 1954 case are you referring to?
I would also note that nowhere in the Constituion is teh Supreme Court called teh final arbirter of the Consitution. In fact, Congress has the explicit right to take issues out of the range of the USSC.
Ever since Marbury Congresses, Presidents, and the rest of the government have all acknowldeged the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. Even inferior courts make constitutional decisions, following USSC precedents.
The Constitution bases our government on a system of checks and balances. There are plenty of checks of judicial power. If Congress and the President are in agreement that they dispute a Supreme Court interpretation they have at least four options:
1. Pass a new amendment (with the consent of the states).
2. Wait for the old justices to retire and appoint more agreeable ones.
3. Expand the number of justices on the court and appoint more agreeable ones.
4. Explicitly change the jurisdiction of the court.
Oh yes, I almost forgot...I dont know where you went to school but the last time I checked...The United States was still a Republic and in a REPUBLIC, the Majority does not rule and thank goodness for that because your "Majority" would probably still be burning people at the stake for using your "Gods" name in vane or refusing to subscribe to your ideals in faith. :-)
Just take a few moments and say it to yourself...the US is a Republic....The US is a Republic...the US is a Republic.
:) Have a nice day!
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.