Posted on 01/04/2002 6:53:58 PM PST by Sir Gawain
If you find that letter, would you FReepMail a hyperlink?
Here is the liberal version of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Exactly when did liberal judges pick up a line-item veto?
We need strict constructionist judges, like Scalia. People who can read.
I wonder if anyone has the stats on how many school shootings there were before prayer was taken out of school and how many there have been since prayer was removed.Spoken prayer as part of the curriculum or events with a primarily secular purpose (the only things banned by the SC, by the way) was removed in 1962. Between then and the mid 90s there was one prominently reported school shooting, the "I Don't Like Mondays" incident. That's a 30 year gap, a bit much to establish causality.
Getting rid of curricular prayer isn't what caused the problems we are having. I graduated high school in 1980 and while there was no prayer, students were definitely accountable for their actions. Indeed, my age group and the one immediately following were the "Reagan Kids" that supported Ronaldus Maximus 2-1 in 1984, and kicked the modell out of the Iraqis afterwards.
It's the removal of that accountability by liberal school districts at the behest of the NEA and the Clintonian DOE that has caused the problems we see today. Both during school and after graduation. Not even 10% of recent HS graduates are worth anything in a manufacturing plant.
-Eric
So I believe when our children were denied the right of prayer in school, that is when our Constitutional Rights were violated.
---------------------------------
As another post mentioned, childen were not denied a right to pray, [at appropriate times] in any school.
-- It was the government school itself that was denied the power to organize prayer, as per your 'no laws made for religion' comment.
Private school rights can not be so violated, under the 1st. --- 'Congress shall make no laws respecting' applies to government supported schools. No others.
This was in a letter written by school teachers around the turn of the century because secularism was being talked about in the public system. I don't have a link, but it comes from David Barton I believe.A lot of what's in the original article came from David Barton. The thing is, he's since had to admit that a number of his quotations cannot be verified. They include the supposed Patrick Henry quote, and the 1892 Holy Trinity case. Here's a link to a full writeup:
American History Re-Written By Christians.
Barton used to have the list of quotations on his own site at Wallbuilders, but he's removed them.
The Trinity case in particular is interesting because the remarks quoted were not part of the decision. Indeed, they were what is called "dicta", notes by one of the judges explaining his thought process but not endorsed by any other judges nor part of the decision.
Go back another 32 years and one finds a decision contrary to Holy Trinity and fully compatible with Everson.
Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion.-U. S. Supreme Court, Melvin v. Easley, 1860
Of particular note is the word "separate".
Much is made of the fact that Jefferson's Danbury letter was not an official government document. What is sometimes missed is that he was clearly referencing the First Amendment as establishing his wall of separation
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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.Indeed, in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879), the Supreme Court declared that Jefferson's letter could be considered as an authoritative declaration on the intended scope of the First Amendment
Madison, in "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments", did much the same thing.
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.Madison also destroyed the "unidirectional wall" theory here. There is also the 1797 "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" , negotiated under Washington, signed and declared under Adams, and approved by a Senate loaded with Framers and their immediate political heirs, which was quite explicit:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...Still, the most compelling case against the "Christian Nation" theory is not what's in the Constitution, it's what's not. No direct reference to God, let alone Jesus, the Bible, or the Christian faith. Indeed, what kind of "Christian Nation" not only omits such, but protects in its founding documents the right to violate at least three of the Ten Commandments?
Nor was it meant to be implied. There was significant discussion during the writing of the Constitution of placing Christianity above all other faiths. In a report to Maryland lawmakers, delegate Luther Martin asserted that "in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." In the end that side lost, and the Constitution would be written as a secular document.
The evidence is so profound that one must wonder why the "Christian Nation" theory is put forth. To grant primacy to the Christian faith as a matter of law would dramatically shift the founding principles. Considering that we are the longest lasting, most stable, and freest nation on Earth, why would anyone want to do that?
The only reason I can think of is that some feel that freedom and liberty is less important than following what they consider to be the will of God. Not only for themselves, but for all others.
That is a path to tyranny.
-Eric
Wow, are you in for a shock. Using the stats contained in the website supplied to me, there were 58 school related shootings, stabbings, bombings or combinations therof between 1962 and 1994. I discounted those incidents that were political in nature, for instance, the Kent State shootings and other such incidents. There was 5 such incidents before 1962.
Congress not only approved his request but issued this statement in 1782: "The Congress of the United States approves and recommends to the people, the Holy Bible...for use in schools."
Excellent work. BTTT!
Spoken prayer as part of the curriculum or events with a primarily secular purpose (the only things banned by the SC, by the way) was removed in 1962. Between then and the mid 90s there was one prominently reported school shooting, the "I Don't Like Mondays" incident. Wow, are you in for a shock. Using the stats contained in the website supplied to me, there were 58 school related shootings, stabbings, bombings or combinations therof between 1962 and 1994. I discounted those incidents that were political in nature, for instance, the Kent State shootings and other such incidents. There was 5 such incidents before 1962.If you are including colleges then we're talking about apples and oranges. Also, this is the time period that violent crime began to sharply increase in lower income areas, a trend that I don't believe anyone is going to rationally say has much to do with curricular prayer leaving the schools. Instead, it was due to corrosive liberal policies. The sharp increase since the mid-90s can be attributed to more liberal policies.
Again, the only thing the Supreme Court has forbidden is spoken prayer or other explicit and devotional religious content in classes or other events of a non-secular nature. These constitute "preference", and thereby Establishment because only one faith has a spot on the agenda.
If moments of silence, bible reading in study hall, religious groups meeting after school, etc., are banned, then they are banned by local and/or state action and such should be fought at that level. Personally, I think such bans might be found to violate the "free exercise" clause
-Eric
"Christianity is part of the common-law."Jefferson disagreed:
Jefferson, who as a careful historian had made a study of the origin of the maxim [that the common law is inextricably linked with Christianity], challenged such an assertion. He noted that "the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or that such a character existed".-Leo Pfeffer, Religion, State, and the Burger Court.Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 121
Jefferson wrote voluminously to prove that Christianity was not part of the law of the land and that religion or irreligion was purely a private matter, not cognizable by the state.-Leonard W. Levy, Treason Against God: A History of the Offense of Blasphemy, New York: Schocken Books, 1981, p. 335
Certainly, the primacy of Christianity as a whole is not part of English "common law", since the Anglican Church is the established faith there. Even if it were, such association would have been severed by the First Amendment, since explicit law passed according to the laws of the United States is always considered to trump the "common law".
-Eric
I think that our founding fathers did recognize the problems of mixing church and state. Madison's words echo today in all the 10 Commandment flaps. Since the versions of the commandments differ between religions how do you post one version without placing that particular Christian sect above another?
"However I don't think this will change the minds of Christian haters here on FR or in the US population."
Christian haters? It really amazes me how strong the "You are either for me or against me" mentality is. I am in no way a "Christian hater", but as I don't want any religion mandated by law, so I guess I would be included in that group.
If the Founding Fathers really wanted to set up a Christian Country governed by the Christian Bible, why was it not included in our Constitution?
John Adams, of Massachusetts, Noah Webster of Connecticut, James Wilson, born in Scotland and later of Pennsylvania and John Jay of New York, would be expected to favor a limited Theocracy. The colonies in New England were founded by religious fundamentalists, and that tradition remained strong.
Remember however, that there was more to the Thirteen Colonies than just New England. Virginians were instrumental in the creation of the Bill of Rights, and the Freedom of (or from) religion was and is an important part of that addition.
"I wonder if anyone has the stats on how many school shootings there were before prayer was taken out of school and how many there have been since prayer was removed."
This is often brought up by the religious fundamentalists. It would be just as appropriate – or even more so – to ask about the before and after stats in regard to gun control laws. Back in the days when a person could order a revolver from the mail order catalogue kids killing kids was indeed rare, and I doubt school prayer had much to do with it.
Seldom are societal trends directly linked to just one factor.
The abolition of slavery and the crystallization of the separation between church and state are just two examples of the many ways we have become a smarter and better nation over the years.
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.