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

Wed Oct 20 20:10:16 CDT 2010

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.

There isn't any argument on this point among legal scholars.  If you're 
impressed by Wikipedia accounts, see

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment>

- or the Law Review article I cited, available through the library.   --CGE

On 10/20/10 7:48 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> "…And that's quite clear (sic): Congress was not permitted to disestablish a 
> church in any state where it was established…"
>
> Please tell us where in the Constitution you find these precise words".
>
> Evidently you are a greater authority on the Consititution than the Supreme 
> Court, as per the Wikipedia statement cited. Constitution
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> 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).
>>
>> O'Donnell was correct that the Constitution did not require the separation of 
>> church and state.
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/10 6:53 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>> 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 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court>,^[1] 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0> 
>>> though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.^[2] 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1> 
>>> ^[3] 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2> 
>>> ^[4] 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3> 
>>> ^[5] 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-4> 
>>> ^[ 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5>6 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5>] 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5> 
>>>
>>> ^
>>> ^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 <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto: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/b46f4793/attachment.html>