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

Wed Oct 20 21:28:44 CDT 2010

The point is that O'Donnell was quite correct when she asserted that separation 
of church and state was not in the Constitution.

On 10/20/10 9:22 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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/f religion/ (by non state agents).
>
> Yes, arguments continue to fly back and forth by interested parties, but the 
> Supreme court, whose responsibility is to interpret the Constitution, has spoken.
>
> --mkb
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:10 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> 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/ee1d502b/attachment-0001.html>