[Peace-discuss] Tea Party Wingnuts Attack 1st Amendment Separation of Church and State
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
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>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list