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

Wed Oct 20 21:30:36 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. The Bill of Rights simply 
prohibited the Congress from legislating on the matter at all.

> 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
>>>>
>>