<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The point is that O'Donnell was quite correct when she asserted that
separation of church and state was not in the Constitution. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/20/10 9:22 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:811A1891-4258-44FC-9622-881FCB13443E@illinois.edu"
type="cite">You haven't answered my question! Rather you are
choosing an interpretation rejected by the Supreme court. "… make
no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not imply
disestablishment from established church-state connections of the
time, but rather making no law prohibiting the free exercise o<i>f
religion</i> (by non state agents).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, arguments continue to fly back and forth by interested
parties, but the Supreme court, whose responsibility is to
interpret the Constitution, has spoken. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--mkb</div>
<div> <br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:10 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> The precise words:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -
i.e., Congress is prohibited from either establishing a
religion (= church) where it isn't established, or
disestablishing one where it is established - as it was
in six states in 1787.<br>
<br>
There isn't any argument on this point among legal
scholars. If you're impressed by Wikipedia accounts, see
<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment></a>
<br>
<br>
- or the Law Review article I cited, available through the
library. --CGE<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/20/10 7:48 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AD06DD35-743E-43BC-94CB-5D156DBFFE98@illinois.edu"
type="cite">"…And that's quite clear (sic): Congress was
not permitted to disestablish a church in any state
where it was established…"
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please tell us where in the Constitution you find
these precise words". </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Evidently you are a greater authority on the
Consititution than the Supreme Court, as per the
Wikipedia statement cited. Constitution</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>