<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The question as posed is what the Constitution said. And that's
quite clear: Congress was not permitted to disestablish a church in
any state where it was established (although of course the state
could do it itself).<br>
<br>
O'Donnell was correct that the Constitution did not require the
separation of church and state.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/20/10 6:53 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:03288C77-88B2-466E-907A-989BC0DD377C@illinois.edu"
type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Palatino">A more
balanced reading comes from Wikipedia, where there is an
extended discussion. In its opening statement there is the
following:</font>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The metaphor [a wall of separation between church and state]
was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has currently
interpreted it since 1947, to mean that religion and government
must stay separate for the benefit of both,<i><b> including the
idea that the government must not impose religion on
Americans nor create any law requiring it</b></i> (my
emphasis). It has since been in several opinions handed down by
the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court"
title="United States Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">United
States Supreme Court</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-0"
class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup>
though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.<sup
id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-4" class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a></sup><sup
id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">[</a></span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">6</a><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">]</a></span></sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><br>
</sup></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;"><sup id="cite_ref-5"
class="reference"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States</a></sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><br>
</sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font
class="Apple-style-span" face="Palatino" size="3"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;">The wish
to control and impose religion on others, i.e. thought
control, is the reason for the cited high court's
decisions. Madison was perhaps the chief proponent, with
Jefferson, of the "wall of separation". Of course,
Estabrook et al. tries to disparage this interpretation,
claiming that these writers of the Constitution were just
anti-democratic wealthy men (as reflected in the first
amendment and the rest of the Constitution). </span></font></sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><br>
</span></font></sup></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;">--mkb</span></font></sup></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="2"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><span></span></sup><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="2"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;"><br>
</span></font>
<div>
<div>On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Wayne is quite right.
In fact the First Amendment was designed in part precisely
to <i><b>prevent</b></i> <i><b>Congress from interfering</b></i>
in those states where religion (= a church organization) <i><b>was
established</b></i> (= supported by tax money):
Congress was prohibited by this amendment from separating
church and state in the six states that had established
religions (= state churches) in 1787.<br>
<br>
The separation of church and state, an Enlightenment goal,
was slowly achieved in the US as the various state
churches were disestablished (allowing us actually to use
the word "antidisestablishmentarianism"). But the Bill of
Rights was always meant as a limitation on the power of
the federal government - a price for the ratification of
the largely anti-democratic and pro-elite Constitution of
1787.<br>
<br>
See McConnell, <i>The Origins and Historical
Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion</i>, 103
Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1437 (1990)<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/20/10 5:34 PM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CBF6E6A.8030306@pigs.ag"
type="cite">First Amendment: <br>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; <br>
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, <br>
and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances. <br>
<br>
Christine is certainly not wrong and knows how to read.
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/2010 2:18 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Republican Christine O'Donnell
challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday <br>
to show where the Constitution requires separation of
church and <br>
state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent,
laughter from her <br>
law school audience and a quick defense from prominent
conservatives. <br>
[...] <br>
The subject of religion and the law came up during
their debate at <br>
Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized
Coons for saying <br>
that teaching creationism in public school would
violate the <br>
Constitution. <br>
<br>
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>