[Peace-discuss] Tea Party Wingnuts Attack 1st Amendment Separation of Church and State

[Morton K. Brussel]

A more balanced reading comes from Wikipedia, where there is an extended discussion. In its opening statement there is the following:

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, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it (my emphasis).  It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.[2][3][4][5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

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). 

--mkb


On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> Wayne is quite right. In fact the First Amendment was designed in part precisely to prevent Congress from interfering in those states where religion (= a church organization) was established (= 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> See McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1437 (1990)
> 
> 
> On 10/20/10 5:34 PM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> 
>> First Amendment: 
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 
>> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, 
>> and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
>> 
>> Christine is certainly not wrong and knows how to read. 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/21/2010 2:18 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: 
>>> Republican Christine O'Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday 
>>> to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and 
>>> state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her 
>>> law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives. 
>>> [...] 
>>> The subject of religion and the law came up during their debate at 
>>> Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized Coons for saying 
>>> that teaching creationism in public school would violate the 
>>> Constitution. 
>>> 
>>> O'Donnell questions separation of church, state 
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html 
>>> 
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101020/b6193d25/attachment-0001.html>