Posted on 01/06/2006 8:07:53 AM PST by MRMEAN
The men who wrote and ratified the First in many cases went home to states that required tithes to the established state church. This was a common practice in New England up till the 1820's. One could belong to the non-official church and send one's tithes there. But in order for these tithes to count under law, the church had to be chartered by the state.
Lawsuits were brought by non-church members seeking to avoid the tithe requirement, with the result that their tithes must go to the established church if they did not belong to any other. All citizens had to tithe to some church, somewhere, period.
Compared to today's strict "church state separation" that removes even historical recognition of religion in the culture, that was a pretty tight relationship, even in the day when Jefferson penned the famous "church state separation" quote in the letter to the Danbury Baptists.
So the question becomes "how does the 14th extend the prohibitions on Congress to other government bodies". In my humble opinion, the First is not covered by the 14th at all, because it does not enumerate rights of the people. It is *claimed* to do that, but the clear reading of it with the understanding of how governments commonly related to churches and the press at the time, it can only be a congressional restriction.
The 14th was written immediately after the civil war, and it's intent was to halt the claims of southern states that the rights contained in the BoR only related the federal government. That's a pretty silly claim, because when it says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms", the BoR isn't limited in scope in any way. That right must have related to the people living in the states, otherwise it makes no sense.
This contrasts with the First, which as I claim above is limited in scope specifically to the Congress. I trust that if the Congressional limit in the First was to be expanded to State legislatures and teachers in classrooms, the writers of the 14th would have said so. But without such modification, I think it's pretty silly that a limitation on the Congress magically limits what a public school teacher can say and do merely because the "Rights" contained in the BoR are extended to the states.
All just my opinion, of course.
I find it amazing that the creationists have such little interest in the words of St. Augustine....I was just struck as to how timely and appropriate and beautiful the words were....
Words do mean things, in the case of this quote, you are indeed so right, the words still ring very true after so many years...
Thanks to you both for the links to St. Augustine...those are keepers...
|
"I've never actually been out in it."
You have to go at night
That may be your opinion or that may be but a straw man that you erect -IF on the other hand you imply my position then you are incorrect and are too wimpy to simply objectively state rather than infer.
WE are the government... WE take sides daily... It is when the officials e.g. judiciary take sides contrary to the people that there is a problem... It is called judicial activism... Not possible if the government IS the people...
In this case specifically the school board was voted out AND the school board may have changed the policy; however, it did not matter.
The ousting of the school board was in essence meaningless and moot act accomplished by an impotent electorate with only the semblance of determination BECAUSE a judiciary imposed its will upon the people AND if the people had voted to retain the school board it would be objectively obvious that the judiciary did its own thing in spite of the people...
This is just another Lawrence decision...
LOL -which one? How about historically the one that still is in many? Maybe you wish to stick my head in the sand with yours? Maybe the utopia of inclusion you envision creating will be better than the world of reality chosen by the people living in it...
Let me point out your severely flawed argument -maybe you just do not realize your position is untenable AND more socialistic or communistic than AMERICAN?
To ask the question "which one" objectively showcases a flawed premise that there is "one" e.g. that there must be a state religion OTHERWISE there can be no religion...
Wow -here is a shocker --what about IF people locally determine what is what e.g. the school board? Guess what there can be MANY and people can move to where they want and follow whatever they want -- WOW this seem so AMERICAN!
Are you suggesting that people who don't follow a single specific deity be driven from the country, or at least be given no say whatsoever in the government?
No -you are -- it is called a straw man...
Good post. But it does seem a bit offbeat to use an absolutist reading on the Bill of Rights in this manner.
The current position of the Supreme Court is that the First Amendment does apply now to states and localities (as it clearly did not originally) through the Doctrine of Incorporation. If this is true, and if you are correct in your assessment of the Establishment Clause, then the Constitution has been flipped upside down. An amendment (the First) originally designed to restrict federal power now is held to unleash such power against the states & localities and the desires of the voters in those jurisdictions. Judge Jones is the most recent example of such unleashed federal power.
Would you accept narby's position that the Doctrine of Incorporation doesn't apply to the relevant provisions of the First Amendment? The DOI is, after all, judicially created and is applied by the Supreme Court only when it's convenient to what they politically want to do. It's like the amorphous "right to privacy". It doesn't mean you can do anything you want in private. It means you can do anything the majority of justices find unobjectionable in private. Ditto for their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. It's never been interpreted to ban all laws that discriminate, only discriminatory laws the majority of the court politically dislike (so excluding women from VMI is a violation while progressive taxation is not).
Ignoring the DOI, states & localities would be free to teach ID regardless of the intent of the framers of the First Amendment. And whatever that intent was as it relates to Congress, it's certain that it was never intended to be a club with which to bash states, localities, and their electorates.
I think you're generally correct here. This is the reason it took constitutional amendments to give federally guaranteed suffrage to blacks and women AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
Of course today, with judicial activism, the 14th is held to even prevent states from blocking the enactment of "gay rights" ordinances or having a male-only military institute.
I don't like hypocrites. I don't like them whether they're the Liars for Jesus on the Dover school board. And I don't like them if they're judges on a court that pretends to take the Constitution so seriously on the one hand, while totally ignoring the original intent of it's writers on the other.
My argument on whether the 14th expanded the restrictions in the First is interesting. I don't think there's any way it would gain much acceptance, mainly because the First also contains language about the press, and I doubt if even the Bloggers would stand for any reduction in their rights as now recognized by the courts.
What bothers me the most is that it's apparent that we no longer actually have a constitution at all. The courts rely more on subsequent precedent rather than it's original intent. And the countries leadership won't really stand for removing power from them today, and giving it to those that wrote and ratified the constitution years ago. Thus, Bork was Borked when he tried to lecture the Congress on the Constitution.
We really have an unwritten constitution, like England. I just wish someone in power would be honest and say that out loud.
The TriuneDidit placemark
I'll agree with you in part and disagree with you in part here. :-)
I see nothing in that passage from the Pennsylvania state constitution that would prohibit ID, unless you also hold it to ban Nativity Scenes, crosses on city seals, and the like.
You may have a good point that ID'ers wasted a good opportunity here, and that it will take a much better case than the sloppy behavior of the Dover school board to get the Supreme Court to back off on its overreach on church-state issues.
By the same token, do you think the pro-evolution forces might actually be hurting themselves with these lawsuits? It probably increases public disbelief in evolution every time a judge slams his hammer down and bans alternatives from being considered, even for a minute of school time.
If evolution is such a strong theory, which would be better for it: A) Allowing a few minutes of class discussion of an alternate idea or B) Daily news reports of the latest evolutionist lawsuit demanding that any alternate idea be banned from discussion? When "B" is constantly in the news, people start to suspect things.
Sadly, you are all too correct on this. The Constitution today is simply whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
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.