Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Separation of Church and State: Establishment Clause and Muddled Thinking
Joe Mariani is a freelance writer ^ | Sunday, December 05, 2004 | Joe Mariani

Posted on 12/12/2004 11:50:43 PM PST by cfhBAMA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 12/12/2004 11:50:44 PM PST by cfhBAMA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA
Their is a name for the modern interpretation of the "separation of church and state", communism.
2 posted on 12/13/2004 12:35:25 AM PST by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (Proverbs 10:30 The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA

Yes most states had state sponsored religions, and all of them got rid of them by the early 1800's. Even considering that, however, the 14th amendment has incorporated the bill of rights and made it applicable to the states.

Also alot of state consitution's were even stricter than the federal consitution about the state and religion, on paper. However when 80% of a state think the same way it is very easy to run roughshod over the other 20%. That is what happened to the catholics when they started to immigrate over here in large numbers during the mid-1800s. When catholics sued the public schools about the use of the KJV of the bible judges in many parts of the US ruled it was alright to use the KJV of the bible AND THAT IT DIDN'T PROMOTE ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER.

However anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that it certainly promotes a specific denomination over another. But there was a concertated effort by many in power to try and convert catholics to protestanism. The catholics weren't going for it so they opened their own schools.

Now you have a country that is 76% christian(from the most recent survery I saw) compared to 95% christian at the turn of the century. The best way for the government to be is neutral to religion, neither promoting it nor hindering it.


3 posted on 12/13/2004 12:41:37 AM PST by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA
Black went on, however, to claim that it meant that neither state nor federal government was allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion.

I would think that if the Founding Fathers had wanted the First Amendment to mean this, the First Amendment would have been written this way:

"Neither Congress, nor any other branch of the Federal government, shall have anything whatsoever to do with any religion".

4 posted on 12/13/2004 1:39:41 AM PST by usadave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA
Wrong. It appeared in at least 1 SCOTUS decision in the late 1800's.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black first enshrined the phrase “separation of Church and State” into law in Everson vs. the Board of Education, 1947.

5 posted on 12/13/2004 1:48:00 AM PST by Ready4Freddy (Carpe Sharpei !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy

Do you know what decision that was or have a reference to it? I have a vague recollection of a decision that referenced that, but I can't remember if it was at the state rfederal level. I do remember that the way it was applied was to stop catholics from using their bible and keeping the KJV in the schools. It was really an amazing piece of convuluted logic.


6 posted on 12/13/2004 2:47:28 AM PST by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA

We need to take back our courts and put in Judges that apply the law as written not their interpretations. Judges should not have a agenda nor a bias.


7 posted on 12/13/2004 2:56:04 AM PST by gakrak ("A wise man's heart is his right hand, But a fool's heart is at his left" Eccl 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA

bump


8 posted on 12/13/2004 2:56:32 AM PST by blackeagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA
Justice Black wrote, “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.” This was partially correct--the First Amendment refers only to the federal government.
Black went on, however, to claim that it meant that neither state nor federal government was allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with any religion.
In this, he was wrong. Justice Black did not consider the historical framework of the Bill of Rights; he took a phrase out of context and twisted its meaning to suit his decision.

The author is incorrect in his interpretation, as many are..
Too many take the word "establishment" to be interpreted as a verb.. i.e., to "create" a church..
Judge Black interpreted the word establishment as a NOUN.. an organization, group, or entity..

Congress shall make no law regarding "religion".. period..

9 posted on 12/13/2004 3:12:33 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA

The single most disagreeable point was the suggestion most
of the founders were "probably Deists".Perhaps I am just not
schooled at such -but The claim seems cotrary to what I've
read of Franklin --and Jefferson.For their writings suggest
Deism as rare and unconventional as atheism. And M.E.Bradfords' work suggests most were active members of their local church.Then there is the centric problem of
confusing what is passed off as Deism today and confusing
the modern corruption of terms with what was understood as
Deism in the founding era 1730-1805.Most of the Founders were schooled in Calvanism.


10 posted on 12/13/2004 3:40:43 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: armordog99

"Probably ,at the time time of the adoption of the Constitution,and of th eamendment to it,now under consideration(the first),the general if not the universal
sentiment in AMerica was, that Christianity ought to recieve
encouragement from the State,. . ." Joseph Story -"A Familiar Exposition on the Constitution of the United States."from the 1859 original.Corresponds to what was
published in Senate Judiciary Committee Report,1853,second
session, and Corresponding HOuse report following session.
It is my understanding,though I may be wrong, that most
Catholics use the KJV,and it is the most widely used English translation of the Bible?There are serious questions ,yet unresolved concerning the 14th amendment and the wisdom of allowing it to subvert the Bill of Rights and the intent of the men who drafted and ratified the US
Constitution.


11 posted on 12/13/2004 3:51:10 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: armordog99

I believe the case referred to was Reynolds v. the United
States,1878 , where the Jefferson letter to the Danbury
Baptists was first introduced.The case then was concerning
Mormon polygamy.And serious questions remain about the
efficacy of using Jeffersons' letter (even the whole-as
done in 1878-as opposed to the mere fragment used by the
charismatic Ku Klux Klansman Hugo Black, 1947)


12 posted on 12/13/2004 3:56:04 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA
On seperation of Church and State

It is impossible to build sound Constitutional doctrine
on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history...
The establishment clause had been expressely freighted with
Jeffersons misleading metaphor for nearly forty years...
There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition
that the framers intended to build a wall of seperation
[between church and state]...
The recent court decisions are in no way based on either
the language or the intent of the framers.

William H. Rehnquist
1985 Assoc. Justice U.S. Supreme Court
Wallace vs Jafree


from my profile page..
13 posted on 12/13/2004 3:59:49 AM PST by The Mayor (If Jesus lives within us, sin need not overwhelm us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath
Their is a name for the modern interpretation of the "separation of church and state", communism.

The Soviet Union Constitution (1977)

Article 52 [Religion]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

14 posted on 12/13/2004 4:02:40 AM PST by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
Too many take the word "establishment" to be interpreted as a verb.. i.e., to "create" a church..

That was the exact meaning of "an establishment of religion" in 1788.

What may Congress not legislate about?

An establishment.

What kind of establishment?

Of religion.

What is an example?

The establishment of Congregationalism as the state religion of Connecticut.

So, Congress shall make no law which would have anything to do with Connecticut's decision to establish Congregationalism.

15 posted on 12/13/2004 4:08:51 AM PST by Jim Noble (Colgate '72)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA
In Everson vs. Boe, Justice Black decided that it was unconstitutional for New Jersey residents “to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith.”

What is this crap? Justice Black didn't "decide" that. That was Everson's contention. And FYI, Everson lost.

Justice Black did not consider the historical framework of the Bill of Rights;

But he did. In fact, almost half his opinion deals with the historical framework.

Kinda hard to care what else the author has to say after he begins with such whoppers.

16 posted on 12/13/2004 4:20:26 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA

Hugo Black...the ACLU's first "sock puppet"

imo


17 posted on 12/13/2004 4:35:36 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gakrak

They have always had a bias. Just read the history of church-state issues during the mid to late 1800s. Protestant judges did every thing they could to rule against catholics, that is why we have so many private catholic schools.

That is why I believe that the government's official stance should be neutral. Of course then the group that no longer has the special status gets mad. Like in Utah were a judge ruled that since the government let a menorrah and a nativity scene be placed in front of a local government building they had to let the local atheist group put up their sign. It simply said happy winter solstice with their logo underneath. It was promptly defaced by, i suppose, someone who thought of themselves as a good christian.


18 posted on 12/13/2004 6:11:28 AM PST by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

It is interesting that you mention Franklin and Jefferson. I think the evidence on those two is overwhelming that they were deist (http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm). However they both still were members of churches, and presumably attended them.

However many of the founding fathers were some denomination of christianity. I think it is amazing what the founders did. Our nation was the first civilization in the history of the world that, at least on paper, allowed anyone to worship how they wanted. The first time that the state was seperate from the church. Of course after the great revival in the early 1800s I think everything else lost favor especially deism.


Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


19 posted on 12/13/2004 6:21:30 AM PST by armordog99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cfhBAMA

Massachusetts had an established church until 1833.


20 posted on 12/13/2004 6:35:28 AM PST by MarxSux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson